The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1471-4175.htm

CI
13,4 Value-based perspectives of
stakeholders’ building
requirements in low cost and
424
government subsidised housing
projects in South Africa
Abimbola Olukemi Windapo
University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa, and
Jack Goulding
University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK
Abstract
Purpose – South Africa still has a considerable housing shortage. Government has tried to overcome
this situation by creating programs to provide affordable housing to poor people. However, such
housing is either often rejected by the beneficiaries or these express considerable dissatisfaction. This
paper thus examines how value is constructed by key role players by looking at the building
requirements that they promote, and asks whether there are any significant differences between the
perceptions of housing providers and that of end-users, based on building requirements and location
indicators. The rationale for the paper stems from the detection that low cost housing projects provided
by government housing departments in South Africa (specifically, within the Western Cape Province)
are either abandoned or considered non-satisfactory by beneficiaries and, therefore, seemingly not
valued by them. This leads to the perception that low cost housing developments are unsustainable.
Design/methodology/approach – The methodology used in the paper is based on value
management, and urban and social studies literature, and on a multi-case study comprising of three
low-cost housing developments.
Findings – Results show that there are significant differences between the perception of key role
players regarding what are important building requirements and location indicators and the
corresponding end-user preferences based on location of the development.
Research limitations/implications – Following the qualitative research approach used in the
research, the main study limitations encountered include communication, because the low cost housing
beneficiaries are predominately non-English speaking and have low level of literacy. This required the
use of oral interviews, interpreters and translation of a significant number of the surveys into English.
The data collected are therefore limited to the accuracy of the translations made by the translator.
Practical implications – Results suggest that end-user preferences must be taken into
consideration by the government and the design team when planning low-cost housing
developments in South Africa, and that this could be achieved by involving the end-users in
decision-making during the low-cost housing development process.
Originality/value – This paper is of value to the national and provincial government in South Africa
because it outlines the reasons for the lack of happiness and satisfaction among the poor and
disadvantaged members of the community in the low cost government subsidised housing, and it
suggests steps that can be taken by government to mitigate the housing problems. The paper is also of
Construction Innovation value to other key stakeholders such as the design consultants, contractors and government officials
Vol. 13 No. 4, 2013 involved in the housing delivery process.
pp. 424-444
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited Keywords Knowledge management, Housing, Value management/engineering
1471-4175
DOI 10.1108/CI-10-2012-0053 Paper type Research paper
Introduction Value-based
Provision of adequate housing for low income families in order to reduce poverty and perspectives of
improve their quality of life has been a big challenge for the South African Government
since 1994 (Department of Housing, 2000). As part of the housing programme, the stakeholders’
government provides a standard subsidy house called reconstruction and development
programme (RDP) housing of 40 m2 which consists of two bedrooms, a kitchen, lounge
and separate bathroom to qualifying households earning less than R3,500 a month 425
(Department of Human Settlements, 2010). According to Smit (2006), low-cost and
government subsidised houses or RDP houses are constructed from sandcrete, block
walls, roofs, cement plaster to the walls and fitted with geysers to supply hot water.
Mammon et al. (2008) established that it has proved impossible for the South African
Government to respond to the basic needs of all citizens and as a result of this,
the housing backlog across South Africa was estimated at 2,399,822 in 2004, with
410,000 units required in the Western Cape by 2010. Haysom (2009) reports that some
of the prospective housing beneficiaries have been on the waiting list for government
subsidised houses for the past 25 years.
Notwithstanding the long waiting period, these RDP houses are often rejected by
the beneficiaries for whom they are built (Turok, 2001). In addition, significant
dissatisfaction by the end-users has been reported in the low cost housing delivery
product and process ( Jay and Bowen, 2011; Tomlinson, 1999). The sustainability and
failure of the low cost housing development projects and failure of planners, policy
makers and developers to acknowledge the needs, complexity and heterogeneity of
everyday social life and lived experience of the housing beneficiaries have also been
highlighted by Kakaza (2009), Robins (2002) and Wilkinson (1998). According to
Kakaza (2009), the sustainability of the N2 Gateway Housing Project is compromised
by the fact that a majority of the beneficiaries who live in the estate are battling to
afford the rent and is unable to maintain the estate, causing them to eventually return
to shack dwellings (Jay and Bowen, 2011). This leads to the perception that low cost
housing developments are unsustainable.
This paper therefore examines how value is constructed by key role players within
the low cost and government subsidised housing delivery projects by looking at
building requirements/aspects of low cost housing that they promote, and asks
whether there are any significant differences between the perceptions of housing
providers – the municipal government, design team and contractors, and that of
end-users/beneficiaries based on building requirements and location indicators. To do
this, the history of housing provision in South Africa and government initiatives is
reviewed, followed by an overview of key stakeholders’ value based perception, next
the research methodology used in the study is outlined, followed by survey data
presentation and analysis, discussion of findings and conclusion.

History of housing provision in South Africa and government initiatives

In 1994, the newly democratically elected government of South Africa made a
commitment to reduce the massive housing shortage and backlog in South Africa
(Government Gazette, 1994). Radikeledi (2005) states that the South African
Government promised to build 1 million houses a year but since then have
consistently fallen short. A clear indication of the government shortfall is that by
July 2001, 1.43 million houses were built, compared to the 3 million houses promised
CI (Radikeledi, 2005); the housing backlog across South Africa was estimated at
13,4 2.4 million in 2004, with 410,000 units required in the Western Cape in 2010
(Mammon et al., 2008); and 2.1 million units still needed to accommodate about
12 million South Africans who are still in need of better shelter (Prinsloo, 2010).
The majority of the homeless people are previously disadvantaged individuals who
are mainly black, poor and unemployed (Radikeledi, 2005). An improvement in the
426 income of the poorest was noted to rise from R783 in 1993 to R1041 in 2008
(Department of Human Settlements, 2010). According to the Department of Human
Settlements (2010), approximately 70 per cent of households in South Africa are
currently excluded from access to housing credit through the formal banking sector.
Consequently, the national government established the following national institutions
to facilitate the specific housing and housing-related needs of the market, in addition
to the role provincial governments and municipalities play – National Home Builders
Registration Council; National Housing Finance Corporation; National Urban
Reconstruction and Housing Agency; Servcon Housing Solutions; Thubelisha
Homes; Social Housing Foundation (SHF); South African Housing Fund; Peoples’
Housing Partnership Trust; Rural Housing Loan Fund and various housing subsidies
(Department of Human Settlements, 2010).
The government scorecard shows that by the end of March 2009, 2.8 million houses
had been provided, giving shelter to more than 13.5 million people, free of charge;
expenditure on housing service delivery increased by 23 per cent to R10.9 billion in the
2008/2009 financial year and by June 2009, nationally, over 570 housing projects had
been approved and a housing grant of R12.4 billion was allocated for the 2009/2010
financial year for expenditure on the construction of 226,000 new housing units across
all nine provinces (Department of Human Settlements, 2010). Sisulu et al. (2005) and
Thwala and Olaosebikan (2005) noted the significant improvement and increased
expenditure in housing delivery by government in 2004/2005. Further, government
plans on spending R16-billion on building new houses and human settlements for
the poor in 2011 (Prinsloo, 2010; Sexwale, 2010) and aims to speed up the delivery of
housing for the poor and have all South Africans accommodated in formally planned
settlements by 2014 (Department of Human Settlements, 2010).
Despite all these government intervention and initiatives, the housing problem in
South Africa still persists (Radikeledi, 2005; Prinsloo, 2010). Radikeledi (2005)
maintained that these problems include the increase in urbanisation, especially
towards the cities; high unemployment in South Africa and poverty within a larger
section of the population; default in repayment of home loans; slow commitment from
the private sector to provide housing loans to the low income earners due to the
inability of the people and government to provide guarantee towards the servicing
of the home mortgages, extended with lack of security by the applicants; lack of
legislation that protects the banks from mortgage defaults; high cost of land
development; unavailability of large areas of land in or close to the urban areas;
bureaucracy of government officials in processing the applications, the release of land
and approvals of housing development; and the ever increasing prices of building
materials which leads directly to high house costs.
Moreover, Bremner (1994) postulates that the process of integrated development of
the Phola Park informal settlement studied, failed because of the highly volatile
political context surrounding the development and its complex internal social and
economic dynamics. van Horen (2000) views that being located furthest from the locus Value-based
of power and therefore decision-making over urban resource allocation, severely perspectives of
constrains the ability of informal settlement residents to engage with interests groups
beyond the local settlement level. In addition, van Horen (2000) established that in stakeholders’
cases in which the community participates in the low cost housing delivery process,
the main actors are typically organised in such a way that the interests of settlement
leadership and those of government often coincide, which results in deals being 427
reached between these groups that do not address the interests of the ordinary
residents.

Key stakeholders’ value based perceptions: an overview

A critical review of the literature applicable to the key stakeholders’ value based
perceptions of building requirements in provision of low cost housing over the past few
years is undertaken. Value can be described as the degree of usefulness of an item such
as a house; it is real and depends on the perceptions of the stakeholders involved; it is
objective and subject to the individuals involved in the valuing process; and dependent
on the complexity of perceptions involved, the context within which judgments about
value are made, the number of interfaces that exist between individuals, groups of
individuals, or organisational units deciding on best value and also the number of
organisations involved in the judgment process (Kelly et al., 2002; Kelly and Male,
1993). Value has a dimension of utility when it comes to the perspective of the end-user.
The research set out to examine the value based perspectives of end-users, government
agents, members of the design team and contractors, who are key stakeholders
considered in the low cost housing delivery process (Jay and Bowen, 2011).

End-users’ value based perceptions

The end-user could be considered the most important key role player when decisions
appertaining to housing development are considered (Turner, 1972; Lizarralde and
Massyn, 2008). This is predominantly because they are ultimately the people using the
houses and developments (Afolayan, 2003). Given this, Afolayan (2003) also reiterated
that the success of a project depends on a number of factors, the most crucial factor
being its acceptance by the end-user. Aspects of housing established in literature to be
of value to end-users are: internal toilets and bathrooms, the capacity of housing units
to permit progressive construction/potential for expansion through extension, security
of tenure/ownership of the property, size of the living area, adequate insulation and
final quality of the housing product (Jay and Bowen, 2011; Lizarralde and Massyn,
2008; Kelly et al., 2002; van Horen, 2000; Amis and Lloyd, 1990); locational aspects of
the low cost housing development including, local amenities and neighbourhood
facilities such as pipe borne water, location of the low cost housing development –
distance to places of employment and the availability of reliable transport, schools and
clinics being in close proximity to the development of the low cost housing initiative
security of lives and property (Jay and Bowen, 2011; Kakaza, 2009; van Horen, 2000;
Ukoha and Beamish, 1997; Amis and Lloyd, 1990).

Clients and government value based perceptions

According to Kelly et al. (2002) the value of the client/government is no single unit
measure but rather a measure of a number of factors. A client is believed to have
CI obtained a high level of value from a low cost development when the project has shown
13,4 financial performance, physical performance, functional performance and service
quality performance generally, but also sustainable building and maintenance
performance. This becomes apparent whereby according to Mahomed (2000) the
end-user is not in a financial position to uphold and maintain their house over its
lifetime due to low incomes. As a result, according to Jongeling (2000) an energy
428 efficient low-cost house (incorporating solar panels for heating, ceilings with
insulation) that is self-sustaining over the life cycle of the house whereby, minimal
maintenance is required by the end-user, and that has low energy usage (Kelly et al.,
2002) has a high value to the client/government. A sustainable low cost housing
development should require less running and maintenance costs from end-users who
cannot afford to maintain and uphold the condition of their houses with low levels of
income (Kakaza, 2009). Celly (2007) noted that energy efficiency is crucial when
selecting alternate materials for construction.
Other aspects of housing perceived by the client/government to be of value to
housing beneficiaries include; security of tenure – Department of Housing encourages
poor households to invest resources in housing and building an asset by offering them
security of tenure in the housing development; and closer access to work and social
amenities including sports and recreational facilities (Department of Housing, 2000).

Professional team and contractors value based perceptions

Standing (2001) acknowledges that the perception of value from a contactors
perspective is difficult to gauge because a contractor carefully balances the amount of
quality and thus cost put into material choice to first ensure the client accepts the level
of quality the contractor has selected and second make sure that it will be of a quality
that will stand the test of time to extend past the date of latent defects liability period.
However, the contractor in some instances as noted by Kelly et al. (2002) insists that
quality of the finished project is a value indicator of their involvement, and is not just
simply profit motivated.
van Wyk (2010) advocated the use of alternate designs incorporating green
materials especially on low cost housing projects in South Africa to provide more cost
effective solutions to the problem of housing backlog, without spending more
government funding, whilst at the same time increasing functionality through the use
of value management. Alternate designs, green materials and construction methods
proposed by van Wyk (2010) include the use of north facing houses wherein the aspect
of the sun is optimised to provide heat in winter and cooling in summer; labour
intensive construction work where people in the community are engaged in the
construction of the houses; and use of hollow composite bricks that can be mass
produced to design. However, van Wyk (2010) opined that the low-income communities
for which the alternative building materials are proposed might not support the
initiative.

Differences in low cost housing stakeholders’ value based perceptions

While it is established that design professionals’ perception of value closely relates to
that of the client (Oladapo, 2001), there is an area determined by Kelly et al. (2002)
where the perception of value between contractor and client do not meet. In a related
study, Jay and Bowen (2011) established that while there is a high level of alignment
between data obtained from city officials responsible for maintaining and delivering Value-based
services and the beneficiaries, it was found out that there were greater differences in perspectives of
the values obtained for the other stakeholders.
stakeholders’
Research methodology
This paper examines how value is constructed by key role players within the low cost
and government subsidised housing delivery projects by looking at building 429
requirements/aspects of low cost housing that they promote. The research process
used for the study reported is shown in Figure 1. Documentation formed the first
source of data. According to Yin (1994) the main use of documentation is to corroborate
and argue evidence from other sources. The research therefore began with a holistic
review of the research problems and stakeholders’ value based perspectives of building
requirements in order to understand the variables used in the study. Value based
perceptions of stakeholders building requirements is an area that has been
comprehensively studied and documented in value management, housing, urban and
social studies. The study undertaken is aligned to the work of: Jay and Bowen (2011),
van Wyk (2010), Kakaza (2009), Lizarralde and Massyn (2008), Kelly et al. (2002), Turok
(2001), Standing (2001), Jongeling (2000), van Horen (2000), Ukoha and Beamish (1997),
Tomlinson (1999) and Amis and Lloyd (1990).
A summary of the representative variables used for building requirements and
location indicators synthesised from the literature is presented in Table I. The
requirements are divided in two – first, those that deal with the elements of the house,
and second the locational factors.
Table I outlines the building requirements in low cost and government subsidised
housing established by Jay and Bowen (2011), Department of Housing (2000), van Wyk
(2010), Kakaza (2009), Lizarralde and Massyn (2008), Kelly et al. (2002), Turok (2001),
Standing (2001), Jongeling (2000), van Horen (2000), Ukoha and Beamish (1997),
Tomlinson (1999), Amis and Lloyd (1990). All the identified variables listed in Table I
except quality were used in the stakeholder survey to establish the building
requirements perceived to add the most value to the construction of a low-cost

Phase 1 - Initiation Phase 2 - Concept Phase 3 - Development Phase 4 - Analysis

Domain Experts
Literature Review Defining Methodology Evaluation
(piloting)

Understanding Needs,
Initial Methodology Gaps and Priorities Three Case Studies Testing and Validation
(inc. Building
Requirements)

117 Respondents
Defining Core Domain
Pilot Study (Clients Team and Analysis
Area
End-Users)
Figure 1.
Phase 1 - Initiation Phase 2 - Concept Phase 3 - Development Phase 4 - Analysis
Research process
 CI
13,4

430

Table I.

in low cost and

housing projects
Building requirements

government subsidised
Previous studies on building requirements in low cost housing
Lizarralde Ukoha Amis
Jay and van Department and Kelly van and and
Bowen Wyk of Housing Kakaza Massyn et al. Turok Standing Horen Jongeling Beamish Tomlinson Lloyd
Requirements (2011) (2010) (2000) (2009) (2008) (2002) (2001) (2001) (2000) (2000) (1997) (1999) (1990)

Building elements
Internal toilet and
bathroom x x
Solar panel on roof x x
Security of tenure x x x
Larger living area x x x
Ease of extension of
building x x x
Ceilings with
insulation x x x
Alternate design and
green materials x
House quality x x x
Locational factors
Distance from work/
gainful employment x x x x x x
Distance from school x x x x
Distance from health
care facilities x x x x
Security x x
Availability of
transport x x x
Provision of a
community centre x x x
Distance from sports
field x x
Distance from
libraries x x
government subsidised house. Quality was not considered as a factor because first of Value-based
all, it is expected that quality of houses should not be negotiable based on government perspectives of
statutory building codes and regulations legislated to ensure minimum building
standards in South Africa; and second, the houses have not been built and the study is stakeholders’
not based on the subject of post occupancy evaluation.

Research positioning 431

The study employs a mixed method research approach, combining quantitative and
qualitative approaches in research design and collection (Abowitz and Toole, 2010).
This mixed method approach combines both inductive and deductive methods to
garner inference and meaning, vis-à-vis “hard” data (uncovering relationships) and
“soft” data (explaining causality) (Mingers and Gill, 1997; Amaratunga et al., 2002;
Bryman and Bell, 2011). Ontologically, the research is premised on a subjective view of
reality that exists independently and can be uncovered and known through research
(Runeson and Skitmore, 2008). In this case, knowledge is obtained through an
understanding of how value is constructed by key role players within the low cost and
subsidised government housing delivery process. Epistemologically, the research
assumes a constructivist paradigm where the nature of knowledge and meaning is a
subjective human creation (Baxter and Jack, 2008). The value of building
requirements/location indicators to the stakeholders was measured based on the
respondents’ rating on a three-point scale of not important (NI), important (I) and very
important (VI), of building elements/location indicators perceived to add the most
value to the low-cost government housing development.
The research methodological stance adopteda multi-case study approach, which
engaged three different low cost housing development projects in the Western Cape
region of Africa between August 2010 and February 2011. These case studies were
used to gain new understanding and insight into the projects in order to obtain case
study specific data. The case study research approach was employed mainly because it
enables research phenomena not supported by a strong theoretical base to be more
fruitfully pursued (Yin, 1994; Fellows and Liu, 2003; Bryman and Bell, 2007). In
addition, Benbasat and Goldstein (2010) identified that an advantage of case study
research is the fact that the research is carried out in the natural environment of the
case. This allows the researcher to observe the natural happenings of the case and pick
up on small details that are very often missed if the data is replicated or another form of
research is used. Benbasat and Goldstein (2010) further explains that case methodology
is useful when a natural setting or a focus on contemporary events is needed.
Three low cost subsidised housing developments in the Western Cape Province of
South Africa were selected for the study based on the following criteria:
(1) must be a low-income housing development (i.e. beneficiaries must earn less
that R3,500 per month and therefore qualify for the subsidy);
(2) must have some form of government involvement; and
(3) must be in South Africa.

Further, the three case studies shown in Figure 2 were selected for the study because of
convenience, access to the sites, which are all located within a 100 km distance of the
Cape Town greater area and, because a multi case study improves the quality and the
generalisability of the study results.
CI
13,4

432

Figure 2.
Case studies used
in the research

The case studies selected for the study were chosen at different stages of construction.
Pelican Park was in the initial design phases whereas the other two developments are
in the construction phase. The three case studies are identified as follows.
Case study 1: Eerste Rivier. This site is located approximately 40 km outside of
Cape Town. The development consists of two sites each accommodating 410 units. It is
a combination of single and semi-detached houses, both 40 m2 in size as per the
standard government subsidy house. The beneficiaries in one of the sites identified
were selected to be part of the study sample.
Case study 2: Kleinmond. Kleinmond is situated approximately 100 km outside
of Cape Town. The low-cost housing development is situated on the slopes of the
Overberg Mountains on the Western side of the town 341 units were in the process of
construction. They are a combination of single and semi-detached houses. The single
house is 41 m2 and the semi-detached 82 m2. The design of the houses in Kleinmond
has been closely studied by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR),
working on initiatives to increase delivery. The main advantage of the CSIR house
is the ease of extension by homeowners. This has shown in the research that it is
regarded as a highly valuable option. The house has been constructed combining
technologies and materials in an innovative way to improve living conditions and the
durability of the home.
Case study 3: Pelican Park. The site is located approximately 20 km from
Cape Town. The 2,000 housing units to be developed in this estate consist of a
combination of single and double story structures. The houses are being handed over
in phases and the first phase consists of 365 units. These beneficiaries formed the
sample for the data collection on this development.

Sample size and sampling strategy

The survey approach is three-dimensional as it seeks to obtain information from the
beneficiaries/end users, members of the design team including contractors and finally
government officials involved with housing development. The sample of the collected
data is small relative to the population of approximately 12 million people living in
informal settlements in South Africa (Prinsloo, 2010). The size of the sample is however
considered more realistic when viewed in context of the actual case studies from which
the data was obtained.
 Beneficiaries were selected with the use of a systematic random sampling Value-based
technique because the beneficiaries could be found in long lists provided by the perspectives of
government-housing department. The client (Department of Housing representatives),
the design team and contractors were selected based on purposive sampling methods. stakeholders’
These cohorts of respondents have to be involved in one stage or the other of the
housing development process. Table II presents the population of the study used for
the beneficiaries of the low cost housing, the sample size, number of respondents and 433
response rate.
To determine the number of interviews to be held with the beneficiaries, an estimate
of the sample size was calculated using the formula (Ostle and Malone, 1988):

N ¼ ðZ=bÞ2 *½P*ð1 2 PÞ

where: n – sample size; Z – confidence coefficient of 95%; b – variability or bound
error of 10 per cent; and P – population.
Table II shows that a total of 117 end-user responses in all were received. This
number is made up of, 28 from Pelican park, 74 from Kleinmond and 15 from Eerste
Rivier. This represents beneficiary response rate of 98.7 per cent for Kleinmond,
36.8 per cent for Pelican Park and 19.2 per cent for Eerste Rivier. This equates to an
overall response rate of 51.1 per cent. There was a low response rate in Pelican Park
and Eerste Rivier, since the beneficiaries were highly suspicious of the survey and were
significantly non-English speaking for which the service of an interpreter and semi
structured qualitative interviews were required.

Method of data collection

The method of data collection involved semi structured qualitative interviews that ask
open-ended questions. These form of questions allowed respondents to explain the
facts as well as incorporating their opinions on the topic (Yin, 1994). Along with the
interviews a questionnaire survey was carried out, which in essence is a fixed
interview where the same questions were asked to different respondents (housing
beneficiaries, and other key role players including government officials, the design
professionals and contractors involved in the low cost government subsidised housing
developments). According to Yin (1994), certain studies will benefit from fixed
interviews as the answers of the respondents can be compared and conclusions drawn.
This questionnaire surveys enabled the survey of stakeholders who were difficult to
reach for example, beneficiaries who have to go to work. Lastly direct observations
were carried out. These observations provide useful additional information to the other
sources of investigation. To further increase the reliability of these observations
photographs were taken.

Population Respondents Response rate

Case (no. of housing units) Sample size (number) (%)

Eerste Rivier 410 78 15 19.2 Table II.

Kleinmond 341 75 74 98.7 Beneficiary population,
Pelican Park 365 (2,000) 76 28 36.8 sample size and response
Total 1,116 229 117 51.1 rate
CI The questions developed were piloted by way of an interview protocol with the key
13,4 housing stakeholders on the Pelican Park low cost housing project. The pilot study
established that the housing beneficiaries were being asked to choose between housing
elements such as a Geyser (hot water heater) or internal plaster to walls/floor finishes
due to limited funds available for construction. The study therefore incorporated the
following building requirements which were not backed by literature, in establishing
434 the value based perceptions of beneficiaries building requirements: floor covering,
internal plaster and Geyser; and locational factors – distance from shops and city
centre in the survey.

Method of data analysis

The data analysis was undertaken with the use of descriptive and inferential statistics.
Involving the use of frequencies, mean item scores, a combination of graphs and a
matrix, and the use of Spearman’s rank correlation (r) method of inferential statistics
r ¼ 1 2 ð6Sdi 2 =ðN ðN 2 2 1ÞÞÞ (Kohler, 1994; Naoum, 2007) in testing the following
hypothesis:
Ho. There are no differences in the stakeholders’ perceptions of low cost housing
building requirements/location indicators.

Data presentation and analysis

Value based perspectives of the key role players
End users’ value based perspectives. Presentation of the value based perspectives of
building elements by the housing beneficiaries surveyed in Pelican Park, Kleinmond,
and Eerste Rivier are presented in Table III. Respondents were asked to rate what they
felt would add the most value to low-cost government subsidised houses, based on a
three-point scale of not important (NI), important (I) and very important (VI). The mean
item score (MIS) was used as an additional method of analysing and ranking the
importance of the perceptions indicated.
From a ranking perspective, it emerged from the study and shown in Table III that
the most important building elements/requirements perceived by the Pelican Park
housing beneficiaries as adding value to their houses will be the inclusion of internal
plaster, an internal toilet and bathroom and security of tenure for the house with an

Rank
Pelican
Building requirements NI I VI Total MIS Total Park Kleinmond Eerste Rivier

Internal toilet and

bathroom 2 46 69 117 0.858 1 1 2 2
Security of tenure 3 44 70 117 0.858 1 1 1 3
Ceilings with insulation 5 52 60 117 0.823 3 4 5 3
Table III. Larger living area 8 57 52 117 0.792 4 6 3 9
End-users’ ranking of Ease of extension 8 57 52 117 0.792 4 7 3 6
building elements and Internal plaster 16 49 52 117 0.769 6 1 7 5
requirements perceived Solar panel on roof 18 54 45 117 0.744 7 8 6 7
as important to the value Geyser 38 17 62 117 0.735 8 5 9 1
of a low-cost house Floor coverings 18 53 16 87 0.659 9 n/a 8 8
MIS score of 0.988. Conversely, the inclusion of a Solar panel on the roof is the least Value-based
valuable. In addition, the housing beneficiaries in Kleinmond value security of tenure perspectives of
more than all other building requirements, followed by internal toilets and bathroom,
larger living area and ease of extension of the building. This cohort of end-users valued stakeholders’
having a geyser the least. The study also established that the housing beneficiaries in
Eerste Rivier valued the inclusion of a geyser in their houses the most, followed by
having an internal toilet and bathroom, security of tenure, and ceilings with insulation 435
with MIS scores of 0.956, 0.911 and 0.867, respectively, (Table III). The housing
beneficiaries appear to view having a large living area as being of the least value.
Finally, it emerged from the study as shown in Table III that the total aggregate
ranking of the value based perspectives of building requirements by low cost housing
beneficiaries is that internal toilet and bathrooms and security of tenure are highly
important building requirements/elements, followed by ceilings with insulation. The
housing beneficiaries view floor coverings as the building element with the least
important value. Visual inspection of Table III without further analysis seems to
suggest that there are differences in the perceived value of the following building
requirements – larger living area, internal plaster and geyser installation, between the
groups of end-users.
Client team’s (client representatives, design team and contractors) value based
perspectives of building elements and requirements. The value based perspectives of
four client representatives, five members of the design team and three contractors that
were engaged to provide design and construction services for the low cost housing
development projects at Pelican Park, Kleinmond, and Eerste Rivier were surveyed and
presented in Table IV.
From a ranking perspective, the client’s team perceived ease of extension and
internal toilet and bathroom, as the most preferred building element, conversely, floor
coverings and internal plaster were perceived to be the least important low-cost
building requirement.
End users’ perception of location indicators that add value to low cost housing
development. End users’ were asked to rate the location indicators that they perceived
would add the most value to low cost government subsidised housing projects. The
interview protocol was first piloted on the Pelican Park low cost housing project.
Interviews with the housing beneficiaries revealed gaps in the survey instrument,
which the beneficiaries noted to be very important location factors. These location
factors include security, distance from health care, schools, libraries and sports fields.
The result of this survey is presented in Table V.

Building requirements NI I VI Total MIS Rank

Ease of extension 0 (0.00%) 1 (8.30%) 11 (91.7%) 12 0.97 1

Internal toilet and bathroom 0 (0.00%) 2 (16.7%) 10 (83.3%) 12 0.94 2
Security of tenure 1 (8.30%) 2 (16.7%) 9 (75.0%) 12 0.89 3 Table IV.
Geyser 1 (9.09%) 3 (27.3%) 7 (63.6%) 11 0.85 4 Ranking of building
Larger living area 1 (9.09%) 3 (27.3%) 7 (63.6%) 11 0.85 4 elements and
Ceilings with insulation 2 (16.7%) 3 (25.0%) 7 (58.3%) 12 0.81 6 requirements perceived
Solar panel on roof 1 (9.09%) 7 (63.6%) 3 (27.3%) 11 0.73 7 as important to the value
Floor coverings 2 (20.0%) 6 (60.0%) 2 (20.0%) 10 0.67 8 of a low-cost house by the
Internal plaster 6 (50.0%) 2 (16.7%) 4 (33.3%) 12 0.61 9 client team
CI
Rank
13,4 Eerste
Location indicator NI I VI Total MIS Total Pelican Park Kleinmond Rivier

Availability of transport 10 45 62 117 0.815 1 1 3 1

Security 9 35 43 87 0.797 2 n/a 1 2
436 Distance from health care 7 44 36 87 0.778 3 n/a 2 3
Distance from shops 21 49 47 117 0.741 4 4 4 10
Distance from school 8 60 19 87 0.709 5 n/a 5 4
Table V. Provision of a community
End-users’ ranking centre 38 27 52 117 0.707 6 2 6 7
of location indicators Distance from work 26 55 36 117 0.695 7 3 7 6
perceived to add value Distance from city centre 45 33 39 117 0.650 8 6 8 11
to low cost government Distance from church 43 44 30 117 0.630 9 5 10 5
subsidised Distance from libraries 31 45 11 87 0.590 10 n/a 9 8
housing projects Distance from sports fields 46 17 24 87 0.582 11 11 9

The low cost housing beneficiaries in Kleinmond rated security as the most important
location criteria, closely followed by distance to health care and availability of
transport. Pelican Park housing beneficiaries rated distance from city centre, libraries,
church and sports field the least in the order of importance. The beneficiaries end in
Pelican Park rated availability of transport and provision of a community centre as the
location factors they consider more important in a housing development. While the
location indicators highly rated by the end-users in Eerste Rivier were the distance
from health care facilities, security and availability of transport.
Client teams’ perception of location indicators that add value to low cost housing
development. The study sought the location indicators perceived by members of the
client team to add value to the low cost housing projects on which they are engaged.
The results of this enquiry are presented in Table VI.
Table VI shows that the client team comprising of client representatives, design
team and contractors, perceive the most valued location indicators of a low cost
housing development to be availability of transport, distance from work and security
in that order, while the least valued are distance from city centre and libraries.
Differences in perception within the key stakeholder groups. The study sought to
find out whether there are any significant differences in stakeholders’ perceptions

Location indicator NI I VI Total MIS Rank

Availability of transport 0 (0.00%) 1 (8.30%) 11 (91.7%) 12 0.972 1

Distance from work 0 (0.00%) 2 (16.7%) 10 (83.3%) 12 0.944 2
Security 2 (16.7%) 4 (33.3%) 6 (50.0%) 12 0.778 3
Distance from shops 0 (0.00%) 10 (83.3%) 2 (16.7%) 12 0.722 4
Table VI. Provision of a community centre 2 (18.2%) 6 (54.5%) 3 (27.3%) 11 0.697 5
Client team’s ranking of Distance from place of worship 1 (8.30%) 9 (75.0%) 2 (16.7%) 12 0.694 6
location indicators Distance from health care 1 (8.30%) 9 (75.0%) 2 (16.7%) 12 0.694 6
perceived to add value to Distance from schools 0 (0.00%) 9 (75.0%) 3 (25.0%) 12 0.667 8
low cost government Distance from sports fields 2 (16.7%) 9 (75.0%) 1 (8.30%) 12 0.639 9
subsidised housing Distance from the city centre 5 (41.7%) 5 (41.7%) 2 (16.7%) 12 0.583 10
projects Distance from libraries 4 (33.3%) 7 (58.3%) 1 (8.30%) 12 0.583 10
of building requirements within low cost housing projects and whether the perception of Value-based
some end-users in one development matched the perception of housing providers (client
team). Data presented in Tables VII and VIII was used in testing the hypothesis.
perspectives of
Table VII shows that the r statistic values of 0.62 (total) and 0.66 (Kleinmond) are stakeholders’
higher than the r tabulated value of 0.60 for p , 0.05 in the one-tailed test and
accordingly, HA should be accepted that there are significant differences in the overall
perceptions of key stakeholders regarding the building requirements that are valued in 437
low cost housing developments, and between Kleinmond housing beneficiaries and the
client team. Table VII indicates that there are no significant differences between the
perceptions of the client team and Pelican Park and Eerste Rivier housing beneficiaries
on the value assigned to low cost building requirements.
Table VIII reveals that the r statistic values of 0.70 (total), 0.61 (Kleinmond) and 0.57
(Eerste Rivier) are higher than the r tabulated value of 0.564 for p , 0.05 in the one-tailed
test and accordingly, HA should be accepted that there are significant differences in the
overall perceptions of the key stakeholders with regards to the location indicators that
are valued in low cost housing developments, and between Kleinmond and Eerste Rivier
housing beneficiaries on the value assigned to low cost location indicators. Although
Table VIII indicates that there are no significant differences between Pelican Park
beneficiaries and the client team with respect to perceptions of valued location
indicators, the study notes the probability that this may be due to the fact that Pelican
Park was used in piloting the study questionnaire. The study questionnaire was revised
based on their recommendations and therefore, the data collected from these cohorts of
respondents had a number of missing variables and values.

The use of alternative materials in the development of low-cost housing in South Africa
Housing beneficiaries were asked to identify if they would be prepared to live in a house
built from alternate building materials. The study regards alternate building materials

di {(PP; KL; ER) –

Rank client team} d2i
Building End users Client
requirements PP KL ER Total team PP KL ER Total PP KL ER Total

Internal toilet and

bathroom 2 2 2 1.5 2 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0.25
Security of tenure 2 1 3.5 1.5 3 1 2 0.5 1.5 1 4 0.3 2.25
Ceilings with
insulation 4 5 3.5 3 6 1 2 0.5 3.0 1 4 0.3 9.00
Larger living area 6 3.5 9 4.5 4.5 1.5 1 4.5 0.0 2.3 1 20.3 0
Ease of extension 7 3.5 6 4.5 1 6 2.5 5 3.5 36 6.3 25 12.30
Internal plaster 2 7 5 6 9 7 2 4 3.0 49 4 16 9.00
Solar panel on roof 8 6 7 7 7 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
Geyser 5 9 1 8 4.5 0.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 0.3 20.3 12.3 12.25
Floor coverings n/a 8 8 9 8 n/a 0 0 1.0 n/a 0 0 1.00
Sd2i 90.5 40.5 74.0 46.0
rcalc 20.1 0.66 0.38 0.62 Table VII.
Level of significance NS S* NS S* Determination of
Spearman’s rank
Notes: Significant at: *95 per cent confidence level; PP – Pelican Park; KL – Kleinmond; ER – Eerste correlation coefficient for
Rivier; NS – not significant; S – significant building requirements
CI
di {(PP; KL; ER) –
13,4 Rank client team} d2i
Housing location End users Client
indicators PP KL ER Total team PP KL ER Total PP KL ER Total

Availability of
438 transport 1 3 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0.0
Security n/a 1 2 2 3 n/a 2 1 1 n/a 4 1 1.0
Distance from
healthcare n/a 2 3 3 6.5 n/a 4.5 3.5 3.5 n/a 20.3 12.3 12.3
Distance from shops 4 4 10 4 4 0 0 6 0 0 0 36 0.0
Distance from
schools n/a 5 4 5 8 n/a 3 4 3 n/a 9 16 9.0
Provision of a
community centre 2 6 7 6 5 3 1 2 1 9 1 4 1.0
Distance from work 3 7 6 7 2 1 5 4 5 1 25 16 25.0
Distance from city
centre 6 8 11 8 10.5 4.5 2.5 0.5 2.5 20.3 6.3 0.3 6.3
Distance from
church 5 10 5 9 6.5 1.5 3.5 1.5 2.5 2.3 12.3 2.3 6.3
Distance from
libraries n/a 9 8 10 10.5 n/a 0.5 2.5 0.5 n/a 0.3 6.3 0.3
Distance from sports
fields n/a 11 9 11 9 n/a 2 0 2 n/a 4 0 4.0
Table VIII. Sd2i 32.6 86.2 94.2 65.2
Determination rcalc 0.07 0.61 0.57 0.70
of Spearman’s rank Level of significance NS S* S* S*
correlation coefficient
for housing location Notes: Significant at: *95 per cent confidence level; PP – Pelican Park; KL – Kleinmond; ER – Eerste
indicators Rivier; NS – not significant; S – significant

as a material other than cement blocks or clay bricks that can offer similar or superior
quality housing. The housing beneficiaries’ responses are presented in Table IX.
The survey findings suggest that more housing beneficiaries in Kleinmond were
prepared to live in a low-cost housing development built from alternative building
materials that housing beneficiaries in Pelikan Park and Eerste Rivier. The
respondents that answered yes to living in housing built with alternative building
materials said that they were prepared to live in an “alternate house”, as long as it was
built to “good” standards and as long as the quality of the house is not compromised.
Those that answered no gave reasons including health and safety concerns, inferior
quality, poor comfort, and that bricks offer better weather and security protection.
Some felt that the government was “taking the easy route” to housing delivery by
building with alternate building materials.

Preparedness to live in house built in alternate materials

Table IX. Housing development Yes (%) No (%)
Use of alternative
building materials in low Eerste Rivier 26.67 73.33
cost housing Kleinmond 68.92 31.08
development Pelican Park 32.14 67.86
The interviews conducted with members of the client team revealed that alternative Value-based
building materials including prefabrication are more expensive than conventional perspectives of
building materials, are yet to be accepted by housing beneficiaries and are difficult to
procure. A member of the design team working with prefabricated houses revealed the stakeholders’
difficulty involved with prefabrication by acknowledging that:
[. . .] this is the first project that I have worked on that will go to the construction phase, and
we will do our best to improve what is currently a disastrous housing model. 439
The client representatives proffered that tender prices for prefabricated houses have
always been more expensive than conventional buildings; no alternative materials
have yet proven to be cheaper than conventional materials; and no alternate materials
have been accepted by any of the low income communities that benefit from the housing
schemes yet.

Discussion
Low cost housing delivery in South Africa is facing a lot of challenges which are
principally the huge backlog in the provision of houses; the beneficiaries are poor and
unemployed and, abandon the houses provided by government after a long period on
the waiting list. The question therefore was what is responsible for lack of satisfaction,
abandonment and “downward raiding” of the low cost and subsidised houses provided
by the government, i.e. some of the new occupants have sold them on to local
headsmen, warlords or other households for a fraction of their construction cost
(Turok, 2001), which leads to the perception that the government provided low cost
housing projects are unsustainable.
It emerged from the study carried out that housing beneficiaries perceive internal
toilet and bathroom, possession of a titled deed and ceilings with insulation as highly
important building requirements. Availability of transport, security and distance from
health care are also perceived by the beneficiaries as highly important housing location
factors. Alternative building materials though touted to provide a more cost effective
solution to the housing debacle (van Wyk, 2010) is not a substitute favoured by the
housing beneficiaries that view it with a lot of scepticism, nor is it promoted by the
client and design team as a suitable alternative to conventional building materials.
Furthermore, it was established that there are significant differences in the
perception of the overall housing beneficiaries studied and the client team with respect
to how they value low cost building and location requirements. Meaning that overall,
what is highly valued by the housing beneficiaries is not valued by the client team
(government representatives, design team and contractors). However, the study also
established that there are significant differences in the value placed on building
requirements within the housing beneficiaries studied, based on location. It can be
inferred therefore that value is constructed differently by key role players in the low
cost housing delivery system and that these differences may be attributed to the
location of the housing development. In the case of Kleinmond, the difference in value
perception of building requirements between the housing beneficiaries at that location,
and the client team may be as a result of local factors including:
. the fact that the design of houses in Kleinmond has been closely studied by CSIR,
working on building material alternatives and initiatives to increase housing
delivery; and
CI .
the fact that respondents in Pelican Park and Eerste Rivier are significantly
13,4 non-English speaking.

These local factors are believed to influence the perception of value by the different
cohort of housing beneficiaries and their level of participation (Table II).
The relationship between the value-based perspectives of low cost housing building
440 requirements of beneficiaries and the client team is mapped into a dependency schema,
the details of which are shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3 identifies a central need “building requirements” embraced by two
“orbits” – “end-users” and “government/design and construction team”. These orbits
are influenced by a number of factors, not least policies and socio-economic drivers.
The study established that there were significant differences in the value based
perspectives of what constitutes building requirements within the key role players in
the low cost subsidised housing delivery process in South Africa. It is posited that this
is the indirect cause of dissatisfaction in, and abandonment of low cost housing
projects being provided by government housing departments in South Africa (Jay and
Bowen, 2011; Turok, 2001; Tomlinson, 1999). The relationship shown in Figure 3
identifies that the housing policies formulated by the government is complex.
Moreover, the housing and infrastructure delivery process influences the method of
project procurement which is mainly a consultant driven and managed approach,
devoid of consultation with the beneficiaries regarding their preferences ( Jay and
Bowen, 2011; Kakaza, 2009; Robins, 2002; Wilkinson, 1998). Similarly the
implementation of standardised housing projects and generic specifications
CHALLENGES:
Literacy,
Sustainability/Failure of
understanding,
Government Funded
information
Housing Projects
provision Priorities,
needs and
expectations

End-Users
alternative
scenarios
cost and
value drivers

Socio-economic
Consultant- drivers
driven
approach decision making Building satisfaction
concerns Requirements levels

OPPORTUNITIES:
Provision of Sustainable/
housing Adequate Low Cost
Project-linked Housing
Figure 3. capital policies &
subsidy politics
Value-based perspectives
approach
of building requirements Government/
and stakeholders’ Design &
relationship Construction
Team
(National Department of Housing, 2002), has a knock on effect on decision making and Value-based
control of the housing delivery process (which lies firmly in the grips of the private perspectives of
consultants), final cost, value of the buildings delivered to the beneficiaries and level of
satisfaction. Dissatisfaction with the housing projects, can also lead to delivery stakeholders’
protests and more political manoeuvring. The end-users perceptions are to a large
extent influenced by their belief in fundamental rights to housing and their
expectations; level of literacy and how they prioritise their needs. 441
Conclusion
Challenges confronting low cost housing delivery in South Africa are multi-layered.
This includes a backlog in the provision of houses, and the fact that beneficiaries are
often poor, unemployed and, abandon the houses provided by government after a long
period on the waiting list. The study examined if the latter and former problems were
as a result of differences in the perceptions of key role players – namely the housing
beneficiary, government, design team and building contractors, with regards to their
perceived value of low cost housing building/location requirements, and to
identify whether alternate materials can be considered for use on low cost housing
projects.
It can be concluded that the solution for the problem lies beyond community
participation (Lizarralde and Massyn, 2008; Emmett, 2000) to include active
engagement, collaboration and communication between the key stakeholders,
decision-making, control of and responsibility for the low cost housing delivery
process. Results suggest that:
.
end-user preferences based on their location must be taken into consideration by
the government and the design team when planning low-cost housing
developments in South Africa; and
.
that this could be achieved by involving the end-users in decision making during
the low cost housing development process.

Other factors beyond the scope of the study include costs of housing maintenance and
services (Turok, 2001; Kakaza, 2009) and whether the end-users’ expectations are being
met (Tomlinson, 1999; Standing, 2001; Kelly et al., 2002), which are beyond the scope of
this paper and should form the basis of a future study.
Given these issues, there is a real need to match needs with expectations.
Alternative approaches to the project linked capital approach should be developed in
which the end-user plays a greater role in the decision making process. Information is
also germane to a successful housing delivery process, and communities must be
kept informed of, and sign off on the designs and requirements stipulated for their
houses.
Following the mixed-methods research approach used in the research, the main
limitations encountered include communication, as the low cost housing beneficiaries
are predominately non-English speaking and have low level of literacy. This required
the use of personal interviews, interpreters and translation of a significant number of
the surveys into English. The data collected is therefore limited to the accuracy of the
translations made by the translator. In addition, the study findings could be considered
generalisable and repeatable to other similar low cost housing developments in
South Africa (albeit constrained by the contextual boundaries defined in this research).
CI References
13,4 Abowitz, D. and Toole, T. (2010), “Mixed method research: fundamental issues of design,
validity, and reliability in construction research”, Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 136, pp. 108-116, Special Issue: Research Methodologies in Construction
Engineering and Management.
Afolayan, A.S. (2003), “Socio-psychological considerations in housing delivery: a consumers’
442 perspective”, in Nubi, T.O., Omirin, M.M. and Afolayan, A.S. (Eds), Private Sector Driven
Housing Delivery, Issues, Challenges and Prospects, Department of Estate Management,
University of Lagos, Lagos, pp. 67-77.
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M. and Newton, R. (2002), “Quantitative and qualitative
research in the built environment: application of ‘mixed’ research approach”, Work Study,
Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 17-31.
Amis, P. and Lloyd, P. (1990), Housing Africa’s Urban Poor, Manchester University Press,
Manchester.
Baxter, P. and Jack, S. (2008), “Qualitative case study methodology: study design and
implementation for novice researchers”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 13, pp. 544-559.
Benbasat, I. and Goldstein, D.K. (2010), “The case research strategy in studies of information
systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 369-386, available at: www.jstor.org/stable/
248684 (accessed 9 June 2010).
Bremner, L. (1994), “Development and resistance: the lessons for planners of Phola Park”,
Urban Forum, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 53-67.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2007), Business Research Methods, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011), Business Research Methods, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Celly, R.K. (2007), “Low-cost energy efficient and environmentally friendly housing technologies
for developing countries”, paper presented at SanjayaLall Memorial Conference on
India-Africa Cooperation, Trade and Investment, New Delhi, 10-14 September.
Department of Housing (2000), Department of Housing National Housing Code, Department of
Housing, Pretoria.
Department of Human Settlements (2010), South African Government Information, available at:
www.info.gov.za/aboutsa/housing.htm (accessed 10 July 2010).
Emmett, T. (2000), “Beyond community participation: alternative routes to civil engagement and
development in South Africa”, Development Southern Africa, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 501-518.
Fellows, R. and Liu, A. (2003), Research Methods for Construction, 2nd ed., Blackwell, Oxford.
Government Gazette (1994), “Parliament of the Republic of South Africa White Paper on
Reconstruction and Development”, Government Gazette, Cape Town.
Haysom, S. (2009), Unprecedented Innovation: A Case Study of the Marconi Beam Affordable
Housing Project, DAG, Cape Town, available at: www.dag.org.za (accessed 9 June 2010).
Jay, I. and Bowen, P. (2011), “What residents value in low-cost housing schemes: some South
African concepts”, Building Research and Information, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 574-588.
Jongeling, R. (2000), Low Cost Energy Efficient Housing by South African Housing Associations,
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Pretoria.
Kakaza, L. (2009), “An evaluation of selected steps to achieve successful community development
projects with specific reference to crime and housing in Langa Township within Cape Town”,
CPUT Theses and Dissertation Paper 297, available at: http://dk.cput.ac.za/td_cput/297
Kelly, J. and Male, S. (1993), Value Management in Construction Projects: The Economic Value-based
Management of Projects, Taylor & Francis, New York, NY.
perspectives of
Kelly, J., Morledge, R. and Wilkinson, S. (2002), Best Value in Construction, Blackwell, Oxford.
stakeholders’
Kohler, H. (1994), Statistics for Business and Economics, 3rd ed., HarperCollins College
Publishers, New York, NY.
Lizarralde, G. and Massyn, M. (2008), “Unexpected negative outcomes of community participation
in low-cost housing projects in South Africa”, Habitat International, Vol. 32, pp. 1-14. 443
Mahomed, L. (2000), A Review of Urban Low Cost Housing Projects in South Africa Through a
Sustainable Lens: Strategies for a Sustainable Built Environment, CSIR, Pretoria.
Mammon, N., Erwing, K. and Patterson, J. (2008), “Challenges of inclusive cities: making urban
spaces and places for all”, Urban LandMark, Second Economy Strategy Project, Trade and
Industrial Policy Strategies (TIPS), Initiatives of the Presidency, South Africa.
Mingers, J. and Gill, A. (1997), Multimethodology: The Theory and Practice of Combining
Management Science Methodologies, Wiley, Chichester.
Naoum, S.G. (2007), Dissertation Research and Writing for Construction Students, 2nd ed.,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
National Department of Housing (2002), “Design and construction of engineering services:
project linked Greenfield Subsidy Project Developments”, Generic Specification GFSH-10,
Republic of South Africa.
Oladapo, M. (2001), “A framework for cost management of low-cost housing”, paper presented at
International Conference on Spatial Information for Sustainable Development, Nairobi,
Kenya, 2-5 October.
Ostle, B. and Malone, C. (1988), Statistics in Research: Basic Concepts and Techniques for
Research Workers, 4th ed., Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
Prinsloo, L. (2010), “SA to spend R16b on low-cost housing – sexwale”, Engineering News,
available at: www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/sa-to-spend-r16bn-on-low-cost-housing-
sexwale-2010-04-21-1 (accessed 12 May 2010).
Radikeledi, L.C. (2005), “An analysis of the South African government low cost housing
provision strategy”, ESSA Conference, JEL Code 057, April 1, pp. 1-35.
Robins, S. (2002), “Planning ‘suburban bliss’ in Joe Slovo Park, Cape Town”, Journal of the
International African Institute, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 511-548.
Runeson, G. and Skitmore, M. (2008), “Scientific theories”, in Knight, A. and Ruddock, L. (Eds),
Advanced Research Methods in the Built Environment, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 75-85.
Sexwale, T. (2010), Address by the Minister of Human Settlements, Tokyo Sexwale MP, on the
Occasion of the Human Settlements Budget Vote, National Assembly, Cape Town.
Sisulu, L., Rasool, E. and Fransman, M. (2005), Address at the Integrated Sustainable Human
Settlement Seminar, V&A Waterfront, Cape Town, 16 March 2010.
Smit, W. (2006), “International trends and good practices in housing: some lessons for South
African housing policy”, Development Action Group the Urban Sector Network.
Standing, N. (2001), Value Management Incentive Program: Innovations in Delivering Value,
Thomas Telford Ltd., Heron Quay.
Thwala, W.D. and Olaosebikan, O. (2005), Experiences and Challenges of Community Participation
in the Delivery of Houses Through People’s Housing Process (PHP) Scheme in South Africa:
A Case study of Gauteng Province, Network Association of European Researchers on
Urbanization in the South (N-AERUS), University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg.
CI Tomlinson, M. (1999), “From rejection to resignation beneficiaries views on the South African
Governments’ new housing subsidy system”, Urban Studies, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 1349-1359.
13,4 Turner, J.F.C. (1972), “Housing as a verb”, in Turner, J.F.C. and Fichte, R. (Eds), Freedom to Build,
Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 148-175.
Turok, I. (2001), “Persistent polarisation post-apartheid? Progress towards urban integration in
Cape Town”, Urban Studies, Vol. 38 No. 13, pp. 2349-2377.
444 Ukoha, O.M. and Beamish, J.O. (1997), “Assessment of residents’ satisfaction with public housing
in Abuja”, Nigeria, Habitat International, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 445-460.
van Horen, B. (2000), “Informal settlement upgrading: bridging the gap between the de facto and
the de jure”, Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 19, pp. 389-400.
van Wyk, L. (2010), “The efficacy of innovative technologies in subsidised housing in
South Africa: a case study”, Proceedings of CSIR 3rd Biennial Conference 2010, Science
Real and Relevant, 30 August-1 September, CSIR International Convention Centre,
Pretoria, available at: www.info.gov.za/aboutsa/housing.htm (accessed 2 October 2012).
Wilkinson, P. (1998), “Housing policy in South Africa”, Habitat International, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 215-229.
Yin, R. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Sage, London.

Further reading
Bowen, P.A., Edwards, P.J. and Cattell, K. (2009), “Value management practice in South Africa:
the built environment professions compared”, Construction Management and Economics,
Vol. 27 No. 11, pp. 1039-1057.
DAG (2003), Peoples Housing Process – Good Practice Case studies, Development Action Group,
Cape Town, available at: www.dag.org.za (accessed 9 July 2010).
DAG (2009), A Place to Be Free: A Case Study of the Freedom Park Informal Settlement Upgrade,
DAG, Cape Town, available at: www.dag.org.za (accessed 9 July 2010).
Holmgren, J., Johansson, J. and Lindholm, F. (2003), How to Succeed in a Low-Cost Housing
Project in South Africa – Analyzing Different Approaches to Provide Homes, Chalmers
University of Technology, Goteborg.

Corresponding author
Abimbola Olukemi Windapo can be contacted at: abimbola.windapo@uct.ac.za

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints