Cambio de los campos de datos

It is clear from the focus groups discussions that, although most beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries feel more comfortable with brick built houses and would prefer this, in general they are not completely opposed to ABT. Many respondents understand the need for speedy delivery of housing to address backlogs, believe that this is an advantage of ABT, and that this often requires specialised labour. Many are also desperate to get any house, and are not overly concerned with how it is constructed. However, this is not consistent across communities and appears to be related to the levels of poverty within a community. While some people indicated that they would accept anything, that it was a gift and therefore could not be rejected, others were clear that they would prefer their shack, would demolish their ABT house as soon as possible and re-build, or that they only accepted the ABT house in order to get the land on which it was built, or that they would prefer to be given land and a sum of money to build their own structure.

Although many respondents would prefer a brick house, it seems clear that they would accept ABT, particularly if the comparative advantages of ABT are made clear, i.e. that they will get a house quicker, that it will be a larger house, that ongoing electricity costs will be cheaper etc. Relating this to what we know about how the poor‟s perceptions are shaped in South Africa within the context of poverty, unemployment and inequality, helps to define interventions related to getting better acceptance of ABT‟s. Their views on government‟s attempts to address their need, unemployment and poverty, shapes their perceptions about ABT.

A number of key issues can be identified from the research findings outlined thus far.

As far as possible, these have been considered in 3 categories – community consultation, education and liaison; perceptions of the actual house and the ABT used; and perceptions relating to the construction process.

128 i. Community consultation, education and liaison

Prior to the development of ABT housing projects, potential beneficiaries have been consulted in various ways, with their views tested through site visits, show-houses, surveys and community meetings. However, the approach adopted has not been consistent across areas, and the perceptions of both beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries about the extent of community consultation and education that took place varies, and often differs from that of provincial and staff of key organisations involved in ABT housing at national level. The different types and levels of consultations could have been deliberate or unintentional since there seemed to be no standard guidelines that were being followed and perhaps they were designed at the local level using local knowledge about what was needed.

An important issue raised in one interview was the fact that people with vested interests (such as people who build using conventional methods) are able to sway community perceptions against ABT in order to protect their interests. Consultation and education efforts need to take this into account. Community consultation needs to target specific groups that may influence the general perception. In order to promote greater acceptance of ABT and ensure that ABT contributes to people‟s livelihoods as a whole, it is important that ABT preferably contributes to people‟s economic well-being, and does not destroy existing livelihoods.

Some focus group participants indicated that there was a need for a central office to deal with people‟s concerns, despite the fact that there are NHBRC provincial care centres, and a customer support unit, with a sub-unit dealing with beneficiary education in Gauteng. However beneficiaries are not aware of local offices where they can lodge complaints or report issues. Accessibility of the beneficiaries to institutions with information and support is important.

In Gauteng, particularly Zola and Kaalfontein, consultation with the community seems to have been more effective than in other areas. This could be related to a number of factors. In Zola and Kaalfontein the show-houses were well built and generally received a favourable reception, whereas in some other areas problems were experienced with the show-houses which impacted negatively on people‟s

129 perceptions. In Gauteng, ABT projects were generally built close to existing settlements, so people saw the building process as it unfolded. In many Gauteng projects, the builders were on site for longer periods of time, due to larger numbers of houses being built, and people were therefore able to approach them if they experienced problems with their new houses.

Several respondents, particularly at provincial and national level, highlighted the need for all stakeholders, including at municipal level, provincial and national level, both officials and politicians, to be better informed and educated about the advantages of ABT, and what it involves, in order to promote its roll-out at scale.

ii. Findings related to perceptions related to the technology used and the house itself

With regard to people‟s perceptions about ABT, there do not seem to be substantial differences between the perceptions of potential beneficiaries and actual beneficiaries. This could be due to the fact that most potential beneficiaries live close to existing ABT houses, and their perceptions would be based on people‟s experiences of these houses.

There is a perception by some respondents that the materials used in the show houses are not the same as the materials provided to beneficiaries, and that they are given an inferior product. It was not possible to verify whether or not this is the case, or a misconception on the part of beneficiaries.

Despite the fact that some provincial officials indicated that the finishes on an ABT house are better than on a conventional house, this was not cited as a positive factor by focus group respondents.

Similarly, some of the provincial interviewees indicated that durability and strength is an advantage of ABT, but for many respondents in most areas, the strength and durability of their house seems to be a key concern. This is linked to a common concern, particularly of beneficiaries, which relates to the foundation.

130 Focus group respondents in Gauteng seem to have a better impression of ABT than in other areas. It is possible that this is linked to more effective consultation and education, but could also be related to the fact that Gauteng beneficiaries are more urbanised and are likely to have come across ABT more than in other areas. Within Gauteng, potential beneficiaries in Atteridgeville seem to have the most positive perceptions of ABT housing.

It is very clear that problems that people experience in their house, that are often completely unrelated to the ABT used, affect their perception of the entire house and ABT in general. Thus, widespread and recurrent plumbing problems, which appear to be common and not necessarily related to the technology used, mean that people may reject the house and the ABT used to build it.

The level of need for a house, usually related to poverty levels, seems to affect perceptions e.g. in Lubala and Ngqeleni, people were more likely to indicate that they wanted any kind of house as they were desperate. The exception is Weltevrede Valley, where people did not seem as happy to have any house, despite extreme need. This could be related to the fact that Weltevrede Valley is one of the oldest projects, so houses are smaller and would have experienced more wear than the newer projects.

Problems related to ongoing maintenance and repairs include lack of clarity over who is responsible for repairs, lack of understanding over how to do repairs, and inability to pay for necessary maintenance. As one respondent indicated, beneficiaries are extremely poor and often have little to no income. They are therefore unable to pay for any maintenance or repairs.

In several instances respondents have referred to the use of asbestos which needs careful and informed handling, if it is allowed at all. It appears to be a misperception that asbestos is being used but better education of beneficiaries would make this clear.

131 iii. Findings related to perceptions of tendering and workmanship

Many residents raised complaints about the construction process, one of the most common being that incorrect use of materials (specifically reducing the concentration of cement used) causes problems which are not related to the ABT itself, but failure to implement it properly. Similarly, allowing insufficient curing time for bricks causes long term problems. While some respondents expressed a need to employ local people, many respondents expressed frustration at the fact that inexperienced, unqualified and unskilled workers were used, resulting in problems. This was often linked to the use of sub-contractors, who are also seen as cutting corners, exploiting workers and producing inferior products.

Two provincial interviewees indicated that they required a high percentage of local labour, one saying 70% and one 90%. It is clear from focus group discussions that the perception is that few local people have benefited from employment on projects, and that contractors usually bring in people from outside. However, many people understand that skilled or experienced labour is required for ABT and that this might preclude a high percentage of local labour being used. Several even went so far as to blame the problems they experienced on the use of unskilled labour, in some cases from their area.

The fact that the entire construction process is not properly monitored and that completed houses are not checked by an inspector was raised as a problem in many areas. A suggestion was made that the actual beneficiary be tasked with monitoring the construction of their house in order to ensure the correct materials are used in the correct proportions, and that the correct building techniques are used.

iv. Factors affecting perceptions

Although most communities indicate that brick is the preferred technology, it was not possible to get a sense of which ABT would be preferable, if people had to choose between different types of ABT, as the technology commonly used across most of the projects examined in this research was polystyrene. Several factors clearly influence perceptions of both beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries of ABT as discussed below:

132

 Consultation, particularly seeing a show-house, improves people‟s perceptions and understanding of ABT.

 If people see a show-house and are then provided with a house that appears to have inferior building materials or finishes, it affects their perceptions negatively.

 Perceptions in a community can be influenced by vested interests such as existing builders.

 Problems experienced in a house unrelated to the alternative technology used can result in beneficiaries having a negative perception of the ABT (such as plumbing). In other words, people are unlikely to separate perceptions that are specific to the ABT from their perceptions of the house overall.

 People who are extremely poor are likely to accept any house, and not be affected by negative perceptions of ABT.

 Seeing unskilled local labour used in specialised tasks can affect people‟s perceptions negatively.

 Negative perceptions of the floating foundation may be difficult to overcome as it could be based on experience of problems, or on prior knowledge of conventional foundations.

 Perceptions of corruption and theft of materials has a negative effect on people‟s perceptions of their house.

 The type of ABT used does seem to affect people‟s perceptions. However, as almost all projects used similar technology, it is difficult to assess any preferences for one form of ABT over another.

133

 Tenure issues, the allocation of houses to beneficiaries, and the way in which projects are rolled out to communities all affect people‟s perceptions of their houses. In some cases, such as Zola 2, potential beneficiaries expressed concern that acceptance of the ABT houses as backyard shacks would reduce their ability to control what is a valuable source of income in renting out structures.

134