南非的住房量子和创新建筑系统——2020年的可负担性展望

Q2 Social Sciences
Emmanuel Kabundu, Sijekula Mbanga, B. Botha, G. Crafford
{"title":"南非的住房量子和创新建筑系统——2020年的可负担性展望","authors":"Emmanuel Kabundu, Sijekula Mbanga, B. Botha, G. Crafford","doi":"10.13060/23362839.2022.9.2.546","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The adoption of innovative building technologies (IBTs) and social welfare policies in South Africa has facilitated an increase in decent homeownership among low-income groups, thus improving their quality of life. However, due to the escalating costs of building materials, the capital and lifecycle costs of implementing these technologies may no longer be affordable. This research aims to provide a comparative evaluation of the affordability of some readily available IBTs in the South African construction industry, relative to existing homeownership subsidy grants. The method used involved the use of secondary data for these IBTs and the income constraint methods. The results showed that, apart from the technologies suitable for the provision of temporary structures, most of the other technologies were not affordable for the complete subsidisation of the top structure when both capital and lifecycle costs were used, except the Moladi and Robust structure IBTs under some low-income homeownership programmes. Further analysis using credit-linked subsidies revealed that the minimum household income required to achieve affordable homeownership (and their rankings) depends both on the evaluation technique (lifecycle or capital costs) and technology used. To improve affordability, any implementing government can either raise the amount of the top structure subsidy grant, promote the use of cheaper but durable IBTs, or promote the use in incremental building methods, such as the Enhanced People’s Housing Process (EPHP) for the case of South Africa.","PeriodicalId":37598,"journal":{"name":"Critical Housing Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Housing Quantum and Innovative Building Systems in South Africa – the Affordability Perspective for 2020\",\"authors\":\"Emmanuel Kabundu, Sijekula Mbanga, B. Botha, G. Crafford\",\"doi\":\"10.13060/23362839.2022.9.2.546\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The adoption of innovative building technologies (IBTs) and social welfare policies in South Africa has facilitated an increase in decent homeownership among low-income groups, thus improving their quality of life. However, due to the escalating costs of building materials, the capital and lifecycle costs of implementing these technologies may no longer be affordable. This research aims to provide a comparative evaluation of the affordability of some readily available IBTs in the South African construction industry, relative to existing homeownership subsidy grants. The method used involved the use of secondary data for these IBTs and the income constraint methods. The results showed that, apart from the technologies suitable for the provision of temporary structures, most of the other technologies were not affordable for the complete subsidisation of the top structure when both capital and lifecycle costs were used, except the Moladi and Robust structure IBTs under some low-income homeownership programmes. Further analysis using credit-linked subsidies revealed that the minimum household income required to achieve affordable homeownership (and their rankings) depends both on the evaluation technique (lifecycle or capital costs) and technology used. To improve affordability, any implementing government can either raise the amount of the top structure subsidy grant, promote the use of cheaper but durable IBTs, or promote the use in incremental building methods, such as the Enhanced People’s Housing Process (EPHP) for the case of South Africa.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37598,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Housing Analysis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Housing Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13060/23362839.2022.9.2.546\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Housing Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13060/23362839.2022.9.2.546","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

南非采用创新建筑技术和社会福利政策,促进了低收入群体体面住房拥有率的提高,从而提高了他们的生活质量。然而,由于建筑材料成本不断上升,实施这些技术的资金和生命周期成本可能不再负担得起。这项研究旨在对南非建筑业中一些现成的IBT相对于现有住房补贴的可负担性进行比较评估。所使用的方法包括使用这些IBT的二次数据和收入约束方法。结果表明,除了适用于提供临时结构的技术外,当同时使用资本和生命周期成本时,大多数其他技术都无法负担得起顶层结构的完全补贴,除了一些低收入住房计划下的Moladi和稳健结构IBT。使用与信贷挂钩的补贴进行的进一步分析表明,实现负担得起的住房所需的最低家庭收入(及其排名)取决于评估技术(生命周期或资本成本)和所使用的技术。为了提高负担能力,任何实施政府都可以提高顶层结构补贴的金额,推广使用更便宜但耐用的IBT,或者推广使用增量建筑方法,例如南非的增强型人民住房程序(EPHP)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Housing Quantum and Innovative Building Systems in South Africa – the Affordability Perspective for 2020
The adoption of innovative building technologies (IBTs) and social welfare policies in South Africa has facilitated an increase in decent homeownership among low-income groups, thus improving their quality of life. However, due to the escalating costs of building materials, the capital and lifecycle costs of implementing these technologies may no longer be affordable. This research aims to provide a comparative evaluation of the affordability of some readily available IBTs in the South African construction industry, relative to existing homeownership subsidy grants. The method used involved the use of secondary data for these IBTs and the income constraint methods. The results showed that, apart from the technologies suitable for the provision of temporary structures, most of the other technologies were not affordable for the complete subsidisation of the top structure when both capital and lifecycle costs were used, except the Moladi and Robust structure IBTs under some low-income homeownership programmes. Further analysis using credit-linked subsidies revealed that the minimum household income required to achieve affordable homeownership (and their rankings) depends both on the evaluation technique (lifecycle or capital costs) and technology used. To improve affordability, any implementing government can either raise the amount of the top structure subsidy grant, promote the use of cheaper but durable IBTs, or promote the use in incremental building methods, such as the Enhanced People’s Housing Process (EPHP) for the case of South Africa.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Critical Housing Analysis
Critical Housing Analysis Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
期刊介绍: Critical Housing Analysis is a peer-reviewed academic journal focusing on critical and innovative housing research. The journal was launched in January 2014 and publishes two online issues annually. Critical Housing Analysis is published by the Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of Sciences. Critical Housing Analysis aims to provide on-line discussion space for researchers who come up with innovative, critical and challenging ideas and approaches in housing-related research. The unique function of this journal is to facilitate rapid feedback on critical and innovative ideas and methods developed by housing researchers around the world. We are especially keen to publish papers that provide: 1.Innovations in methods, theories and practices used in housing-related research. We especially welcome papers applying original research strategies (such as, mixed and interdisciplinary methods) and international comparisons with a strong sense for contextual and institutional differences. Papers should provide new and fresh research perspectives allowing a deeper understanding of housing markets, policies and systems. Innovations need to be justified but they could be “work in progress”, i.e. their findings may not yet have been fully verified. 2.Critiques of assumptions, methods and theories used in housing-related research. Such critical evaluations must be well-founded (empirically or by consistently logical argument) and convincing. However, there is no particular need to provide a solution to the problems that have been identified. 3.Critiques of applied housing practices and policies in particular cultural and institutional contexts, especially for those countries that are less represented in mainstream housing policy discourse. The critical assessment of policies must be analytical, should propose new perspectives and lead to wider policy implications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信