Socio-Technical Dimensions for a Sustainable Housing Transition
6.2 Guiding Principles
For this book, we define guiding principles as the embedded moral values that establish a framework for expected behaviour, practices, and decision making. As discussed in earlier chapters, the existing housing regime in many regions of the world is dominated by entrenched guiding principles located within the frame of neo-classical markets and by stakeholders who use this approach to design, construct, and maintain housing in a certain way—low quality and low cost—with little consideration for the environment and follow the minimum building code and local planning system requirements [3–7]. There is a disconnect between this typical housing provision and what is required for a sustainable and equitable future for everyone.
Typical guiding principles for many (but not all) stakeholders in the housing industry are generally focused on refining the business model.
This model was developed over many decades and is geared towards max- imizing financial profit, often at the expense of improving housing qual- ity and performance outcomes for households [3, 8–10]. This approach sees the provision of new housing and the renovation/retrofit of existing housing as primarily a business transaction, taking advantage of any opportunity to reduce costs, time, or resources to improve the financial bottom line. This approach is not overly concerned with the housing consumer experience or with what happens after the completion of the dwelling or renovation/retrofit project. The broader housing sector would likely challenge this point and argue they are providing housing that con- sumers want, even if that does not align with what we need in relation to addressing the environmental and social housing issues discussed earlier in the book.
The lack of care and consideration by much of the existing housing regime is evident through the amount of basic, as well as more signifi- cant, defects in many new dwellings. For example, recent research in Australia found that up to 85% of new dwellings in some jurisdictions contain defects such as cracks in floors or walls and issues with water proofing [11]. Financial and social defects do not only impact the home- owner [3]; defects also have significant financial impacts on those build- ers, developers and other key stakeholders responsible. For example, the cost of rework can amount to almost 5% of the overall project contract value [12–14], and can reduce company profits in some cases by approxi- mately one third [15]. The impacts of poor quality and performing dwell- ings can escalate into systematic issues where governments are forced to step in and provide financial or other supports. The flammable cladding crisis (e.g., Australia, UK, Dubai) and the leaky homes/condo sagas (e.g., New Zealand and Canada) demonstrate some of the more extreme out- comes of systematic shortcomings across the housing sector [3].
In addition to issues surrounding quality of work, the wider housing sector typically builds only to minimum performance and sustainability standards. For example, in Australia, research into new housing construc- tion found more than 80% of new dwellings only just met minimum regulatory requirements with less than 1.5% being designed and built to meet optimal cost and sustainability as outlined by researchers [16].
On the other hand, sustainable housing has been identified by both researchers and sustainable housing advocates as having a completely dif- ferent set of guiding principles, which have continued to evolve over time as the sustainable housing sector grows [1, 2]. The drivers and motiva- tions of sustainable housing stakeholders is not only centred on the hous- ing consumers, but more largely on improved quality and reducing environmental impact—both in construction and during the life of the dwelling and household [17]. In effect, sustainable housing flips the thinking of the dwelling from being a place to sleep and eat to an oppor- tunity to enhance the quality of life; it focuses on liveability and afford- ability for the household and shifts from short-term thinking to life cycle thinking. The aim is to ensure that the impacts and benefits of materials, technologies, and other elements of a dwelling are considered across the
life of a dwelling, including during the dwelling’s end of life [18, 19].
Within this set of guiding principles, the idea of financial profit is not a dominant consideration. Instead, financial considerations are linked to what can be achieved within the set budget and is thought about more from the perspective of the wider financial, social, and environmental value provided.
With a focus on improving the quality of a dwelling, sustainable hous- ing aims to mitigate the number and range of defects [3]. This is done through more thoughtfully considering design and materials. This is also achieved through delivering a quality project the first time, which helps to reduce costs. Reducing costs can help to make housing more afford- able from a capital perspective. If issues with quality did arise, a direct chain between the key stakeholders involved (e.g., builder) and home- owner allow for an open discussion on finding a resolution. Sustainable housing also goes significantly beyond what is set within minimum building code requirements by taking a more holistic view of the key sustainability elements. Typical building codes have had a narrow focus or definition of sustainability (e.g., focused on reducing energy for ther- mal comfort), but sustainable housing expands this to include consider- ations of water, transport, materials, and life cycle impacts with an increasing number of developments working to achieve outcomes within our current planetary means (e.g., one planet living and self-sufficiency living).
Guiding principles of sustainable housing have evolved in more recent years to consider a range of different elements such as ensuring afford- ability (across the life of the dwelling), transparency of decision making, community collaboration, occupant health and well-being, and ethical supply chains [2, 20]. This evolution is also about supporting the sharing of intellectual property (including what has worked but also any issues that emerge) across stakeholders to enable a wider collaborative approach to advancing the work and knowledge of others. This has elevated how we define sustainable housing—what it is and what it can deliver—not just for households, but for those in the housing industry engaged with providing, maintaining, and upgrading this type of housing.
6.2.1 Living Within Planetary Means
Living within our planetary means has become an increasing focus and a core starting point in terms of guiding principles for sustainable housing developments and retrofit projects. This focus on reducing the ecological impact from housing, and associated practices that occur within housing, is not only about addressing climate change but also about overconsump- tion of resources. We have one planet, and that planet has a finite number of resources and a limited capacity to replenish them [21]. Many exam- ples have emerged over recent decades of individual dwellings and larger communities being designed, constructed, and used in ways that reduce the ecological footprint of the household and development down to near, or under, the resources required for living within our planetary means.
One example is the development of the rating framework ‘One Planet Living’,1 which was developed by Bioregional in the early 2000s to help developments achieve this outcome. A notable example of a development following this framework is BedZED (UK) which was completed in 2002 and is still widely recognized as an early exemplar sustainable hous- ing development that went beyond just providing a technical solution and reframed the idea of sustainable housing through the guiding prin- ciples of living within our planetary means [22]. Another approach has been the (re)emergence of self-sufficiency [23]. The idea of self-sufficiency is about living a lower environmental impact lifestyle and includes con- siderations for reducing finance and resource waste through frugality, growing your own food, producing and collecting sufficient energy and water onsite, reducing debt, living simply, and even using local materials for construction [24]. For example, Earthship homes not only repurpose large amounts of consumer waste within the construction process but also focus on outcomes to help the household live a simpler life [25].
Both BedZED and Earthship homes prioritize quality and needs over wants and trends, and they aim to enhance quality of life, affordability, and overall sufficiency and resiliency.
1 http://bit.ly/3EVeLO0