The use of alternative building technologies as a sustainable affordable housing solution: perspectives from South Africa

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to evaluate the perception of the local experts and end users on the drivers, barriers and strategies to the use of alternative building technologies (ABTs), with a focus on sandbag building technologies (SBTs) in the provision of sustainable housing in South Africa towards improving the public's understanding of SBTs. Design/methodology/approach This research adopted a qualitative approach that used focus group meetings as the primary data collection method for this study. This study's focus group participants comprised ABT experts and end users of ABT houses in South Africa who were selected using a convenient sampling technique. The data were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using NVivo 11 software. Findings This study found that the perceived drivers to using ABTs such as SBT comprise sustainability, affordability, job creation potentials, fire-resistant and earthquake resistance. This study revealed strategies for the SBTs, including awareness, building sandbag prototypes across cities and training. Practical implications This study's findings have practical implications for the practice and praxis of ABT implementation and uptake in South Africa. This study provides a framework for broadening the worldwide understanding of use and uptake of SBTs to provide sustainable and affordable housing. Originality/value This study adds significantly to the limited body of knowledge on ABTs, focusing on sandbag houses. Consequently, the findings provide policymakers with information on the expert and end-user perspectives on the barriers and strategies to using ABTs.

Appraising alternative building technologies adoption in low-cost housing provision to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 11

“…This is in line with Adetooto et al. (2022a, b). They employed a qualitative method through focus group meetings to explore the use of ABT in improving affordable housing from South Africa's perspective.…”

“…, 2021; Adetooto et al. , 2022a, b). The mechanism could enhance the cost-efficiency, deliverability and quality of public-built LCH.…”

“…In South Africa, there is a perception that ABT-constructed houses are majorly for the disadvantaged (Adetooto et al. , 2022a, b). Grady et al.…”

“…Tshivhasa and Mbanga (2018) and Adetooto et al. (2022a, b) described ABT as any proficiency, talent, knowledge, tools, machinery or equipment other than the traditional ways to quicken housing delivery without bargaining the durability and quality of building projects. In South Africa, there is a perception that ABT-constructed houses are majorly for the disadvantaged (Adetooto et al.…”

“…Adetooto et al. (2022a, b) conducted studies regarding ABT as a sustainable housing solution but not focussing on LCH provision to achieve SDG 11 and Nigeria's context. In Nigeria, citizens are not exempted regarding the perceived houses built through ABT.…”