Sensibilidad al priori

The sustainable development concept starts emerging in the second half of the 1970s because of the economic dichotomy with balance of payment issues resulting from the sudden rise in oil prices, characterised by the general weakness in the economic system mostly in African countries (Franks, 2006; Cusworth and Franks, 1993). There was also a general reduction in the standard of living in the entire economy and severe impacts on the development of projects, and the wider policy-making and planning in the environment (Ihuah, 2007; Franks, 2006). Therefore, in 1972, a conference on the Human Environment was held in Stockholm, Sweden, which was attended by 113 states/countries and with representatives from 19 international organisations. This marked the first ever international conference devoted exclusively to addressing environmental problems with a global strategy. At the conference, 27 experts where able to articulate the relationships between the environment and development indicating that though individual preferences and conflicts exist on the issue they are intrinsically two sides of the same coin (Vogler, 2007). Also, at the conference, the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) was created with the mission to provide leadership and encourage partnership, caring for the environment through inspiration, information and enablement. These fostered among nations and people, the desire to improve their quality of life without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own quality of life needs. However, the conferences effectiveness was limited because of environmental protection and development needs, particularly in the third world, where it was seen as competing needs, and would need to be dealt with in a separate, clumsy fashioned manner. The more worrisome feature was to recognize the trade-off between environment and development rather than promoting harmonious linkages between the environment and development (Prizzia, 2007). It was clear that a more integrated perspective that incorporated both the environment and economic development issues was indispensable. Therefore, in 1983, the United Nations general assembly created the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) which later was named after the chairman of the commission ‘The Bruntland Commission’. Thereafter, in 1987, the commission published their first report entitled ‘Our Common Future’; which provided the most significant and generally accepted definition of sustainable development (Vogler, 2007). However, Daly and Cobb (1989) and Timberlake (1989) asserted that the Bruntland Commission’s definition of sustainable development was both optimistic and vague; having a purposeful and politically astute component which generated debate of the full spectrum of possible interpretations, and that the claim that we can have economic growth without damaging the environment was a sheer statement of opinion. Nonetheless, Bartlett (2006) asserted that the Commission itself

25

suggested that for the definition to be accepted, the discussion had to be optimistic. Bartlett (2006) therefore further argued that it was necessary to be vague and contradictory as not to appear to be pessimistic. However, in whatever ways the Bruntland’s definition of sustainable development is examined, it remains the hallmark for the concurrent understanding, acceptability, and application of sustainable development or sustainability concepts in the world today.

2.2.3. Essential Sustainability Factors to Social (Public) Housing Estates Project

The sustainability or sustainable development factors to either environmental, economic or social development projects including social (public) housing estate projects are contested on: policy factors; institutional (organisational) factors; socio-cultural (community and social aspects) factors; environmental factors; technological factors; financial/economic factors; and monitoring, evaluation and reporting factors (Brandon and Lombardi, 2011; Harvey and Reed, 2004; Mukherjee and Van Wijk, 2002; Parry-Jones et. al., 2001). In a critical assessment, it is argued that, the concept of sustainability measurement and understanding has become a multi-dimensional challenge to its applications (Mukherjee, 1999). However, strategies have evolved to prove the sustainability factors of system projects, which assist to viewing issues in a bigger picture for decision-making, although their connections and relationships are not clearly identified (Harvey and Reed, 2004). Therefore, their contentions are multi-divergent and multi-convergent depending on the perspective to the conceptualisation (Parry-Jones et. al., 2001).

Similarly, Harvey and Reed (2004) and Schoolkate (1992) argued that, sustainability factors for projects ought to be discussed in relation to the: policy environment; perceptions and attitudes; skills and institutions; and selection of appropriate technology. However, these variables critically match with the essential sustainability factors indicated above, hence the review of the sustainability factors to social (public) housing estate management would be under the: policies factors; institutional factors; external estate community and social aspects factors; technological factors; environmental factors; financial/economic factors; and monitoring, evaluation and reporting factors. Within these factors and in the context of this research, issues such as: lack of technical know-how; insufficient capacity building; lack of education, information, awareness, participation, involvement, decentralisation, and communication; and lack of monitoring, evaluation and reporting strategy (Franks, 2006; El- Gohary et. al., 2006) emerge as sub-factors within the various factor categories.

26 2.2.3.1. Policy Support Factors

The policy factors in the context of social housing sustainability is considered from two perspectives, that is, policy and organisational structures both within and outside the project environment being supportive of social housing stock management. The policies, its development and implementation are essential to a projects sustainability’s to which social housing projects are not an exception. Social housing policy development within the context of developing countries is still new, although South Africa is on its way to producing a social housing management policy for sustainability. A quicker approach was used in Nigeria, which currently has included social housing provision in the 2011 Nigerian National Housing Policy (FMLHUD, 2012).

Most African countries; and in particular Nigeria, have developed policies relating to social (public) housing estates, focusing on the best approaches for social housing provision in terms of the technology and service provisions; financing, tariffs and subsidies; management and sustainable elements of the problem; community, voluntary and private sector involvement and participation; and the co-ordination and partnerships towards eliminating the issues (FMLHUD, 2012; Parry et. al., 2001). However, the development or improvement of a social housing policy in a country is not a function of the sustainability of the social housing estates but, it is a fundamental basis for all sectors to focus on making social housing estates available and affordable to the less privileged in the country (FMLHUD, 2012). This has led to the significant interest of the Federal, State and Local government in active social housing provision and services delivery in Nigeria. However, no significant level of achievement is evidenced in the Niger Delta, and that warranted Ebie (2012) to stress that social housing estates provision and management in the Niger Delta remains vitally imperative.

Contrastingly, where there are no policies developed in relation to social housing estates management in a country, particularly for the rural communities, every sector and stakeholder will see the issues differently, deploying different execution and management strategies, and different social housing technologies; that will all cause disintegration and unsustainable housing as demonstrated in the Niger Delta. In these circumstances, it is argued that the level of politics and its dynamic nature in a country is a core issue of sustainability particularly pertinent in relation to social housing estate provision and post-construction management. The political system of the country must have a total commitment to providing an encouraging atmosphere for the development of social housing estates; otherwise the possibility of not meeting the social housing demand and the objectives is highly visible. However, it is

27

necessary to understand that policy formulation is multi-dimensional and dynamic in nature, by which the stakeholders supporting the social (public) housing estates and it technologies, must be ready, to achieve the successful implementation of the projects. Furthermore, there must be institutions and personnel to drive policy implementation; stakeholders that adhere to policy and strategy guidelines; a consistent regulatory and legislative framework; and adequate financial resources (Ebie, 2012; ADB, 2005; Harvey and Reed, 2004; Kennedy, 1997).

2.2.3.2. Institutions/ Organisational Arrangements Factors

Sustainability of social (public) housing estates is dependent on the institutional and organisational set-up, particularly the maintenance strategies/practices put in place that will guarantee the social and financial returns over the expected social housing estate life- cycle (Ihuah and Kakulu, 2014). According to the 2012 Nigerian National Housing policy, the institutional framework forms the structure of the entire housing delivery system and the structure within which housing policy is implemented. This greatly influences the success of social housing estate delivery and management and that institutional roles should begin at the initialisation stage of the policy development, and be sustained throughout the implementation, coordination, monitoring and evaluation and review stages. From the former and later statements, it is clear that the post-construction management strategies of social housing estates are not yet developed. Parry-Jones, et. al. (2001), Mudege (1993) and Morgan (1993) stressed that no project development including social (public) housing estate projects should be implemented in any particular environment without a strategic approach for the post-construction management. This is the management culture practices which keeps the social projects functional, and remains much more significant than the actual housing estate construction management. Therefore, in the context of social housing estates post- construction management, management at the lowest appropriate level is important, and the role of the Federal, State and Local government in partnering with each other is imperative for sustainable social housing estates management. Also, considering that decentralisation is a new concept for the African continent and it is a system that is mostly enshrined in a good governance concept. Social housing management or service delivery ought to be outside the jurisdiction or control of local government and the private sectors as they lack the most required resources to satisfy this function within society (Parry-Jones et. al., 2001; Sohail, 2001). At the same time, the lack of commitment, instability, capacity gaps and lack of co- operation and the merging and de-merging amongst the different departments of the government such as in Nigeria (FMLHUD, 2012; WELL, 2001) has led to discontinuity,

28

conflicts and corruption practices in social housing service delivery (Ezeani, 2005). Therefore, for social housing stock sustainability, the need to support and build capacity in all aspects even for the local government to support and provide the environment for effective and efficient social housing management in rural and urban environment is significant. In the Niger Delta of Nigeria, the Federal and State Government have failed to render the necessary services of providing social housing to citizens. This has therefore required facilitating the initiatives of the private sector and non- governmental organisations (NGOs) to participate and involve themselves in social housing estate delivery and post-construction management to the rural community directly (Parry-Jones et. al., 2001; Frolich, 1999). This is to promote a meaningful level of achievement so as to abate the social housing estate deficit challenges. Despite this, the problems still boil down to the Federal and State Government to provide and manage the social housing estates since the instruments for the housing estates delivery and post-construction management are weak. However, some of the private sector and NGOs are still concerned with the manufacturing and supply of building materials, installation, training and certain maintenance activities within the social housing estate sector. According to the FMLHUD (2012, p.86) report, the private sector is defined as;

‘‘those organisations (banking and non-banking financial intermediaries, industrial and commercial organisations) or individuals committing their resources to satisfy housing need of this country with a view to making profit in accordance with laid down policies and regulations’’.

But no research evidence which outlined the level, approaches and mechanisms of their participation/involvement in social housing sustainable management was found by the researcher. Although, in the Nigerian National Housing Policy (2012), it states that if the private sector is to effectively participate in social housing provision, the government shall grant some form of allowances and relief on residential buildings and provide tax exemptions on mortgage loans. This may imply that the level of participation is only limited to those social housing estate projects exclusively undertaken by them and not the ones in co-operation with the government. This would agree with the assertion that most of the government owned social housing estate projects have been undertaken without any involvement of the private sector, NGOs and without any community participation from the on-set of the planning and design phases of the project, and which therefore never become sustainable to the community (Barrett and Shahidullah, 1992). Consequently, Anand (2007) argued that it is the Federal Government that has the main role of setting the policy and institutional framework which

29

other sectors should follow through participatory democracy by the citizens; and that sustainability of social (public) housing estates through good governance is a major priority in any economy.

2.2.3.3. Technological Factors

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Bank (WB) initiatives in the 1970s on global/interregional project laboratory testing and technological development substantiated the fact that technology might no longer be a limiting issue to project sustenance in the rural community (Parry-Jones et. al., 2001). But this notion appears deficient, as most projects failures are associated with a lack of available materials, the poor quality of the

materials, and the unplanned maintenance design management (Fonseka and Baumann, 1994).

The technological factors relate to the: building materials availability; local manufacturing capabilities; planned preventive maintenance; housing estate usage; durability; technological transfer; and the uncontrolled rising costs of building materials; (FMLHUD, 2012). In the

FMLHUD (2012. p.63) housing policy, it states that ‘the building materials sub-sector is intricately connected to the process of national industrial development; and the improvement of local capacities is one major way to stem the overdependence on the importation of building materials’. In social housing development and post-construction management, the most frequent problems are increased construction and labour costs resulting from: increased import duties; lack of consistency of policy formulation and implementation; over-priced contract; over-priced cost of construction; shortages of skilled manpower; and the absence of indigenous technology for the production of building materials (FMLHUD, 2012). Local manufacturing of building materials, particularly in Nigeria, is limited. Such that where available, the quantity, quality and durability of these materials, often poorly manufactured is so constrained to the extent that its use becomes risky to housing provisions. Nevertheless, quality specifications can be put in place and monitored for compliance within the building material production sector as indicated in the Nigerian National Housing Policy, but it is still in its infancy. Despite the flaws, some of the locally manufactured building materials are more costly in certain African countries (for example-Nigeria-Port Harcourt) than the imported ones from the country of production. From this perspective, the provision of social housing estates stock materials and post-construction management will be retard as most projects could not afford to pay in advance for the building materials stock, but Parry-Jones et. al. (2001) opined that better sustenance of projects and the related local benefits can still

30

be achieved when the materials are purchased offshore and delivered through local participation.

On the matter of availability of building materials as it relates to social housing estate project sustenance, the problems of inadequate and insufficient infrastructural facilities such as: bad roads, water, sanitation; and power supply remain a serious problem. This is because the quality, availability, procurement and supply of these infrastructures are challenging, and at most times, the project developers fail to consider the future consequences of these factors to the project sustenance. Baumann (1994) contended that the purchase of materials for a project (including housing estate projects) should be made to be economically feasible and viable. The locally manufactured materials should have a strong linkage to the community market for better contact with the beneficiaries of the project (FMLHUD, 2012; Woodhouse, 1999); and the willingness of the stakeholders to procure the materials should be encouraged (Breslin, 2001). This should be through providing incentives to, and creating, the enabling environment for flow of funds and tax relief, loans at reduced interest rate and encouraging the use of the locally produced material at all tiers of government constructions (FMLHUD, 2012).

Another encouraging step should be to restructure and adequately fund the Nigerian Building and Road Research Institute and the establishment of building materials testing laboratories by either the government or the private sector. Technology transfer in terms of building material production and high maintenance skills is gaining a certain momentum, but a lot more is needed in this aspect. This would afford long-term production and knowledge accumulation that can be transferred to countries of similar environmental, political, social and economic status (Parry-Jones et. al., 2001; Alberts et. al., 1993). However, the level of this technology transfer is something to which attention must be given if the expertise to be transferred matches the desire of the community or intended development. One way of addressing this is by developing effective manpower training programmes to raise the output of the building industries through: providing, restricting and expanding vocational training centres for the training of personnel; and to provide and upgrade structured training for indigenous contractors and developers through short-term programmes in project management, construction management and building methods (FMLHUD, 2012).

2.2.3.4. Environmental Factors

The sustainability of social (public) housing estates post-construction in the context of the environment, relates to thing such as the: quality and condition of the social housing estate environment; housing estate design in terms of ventilation, lighting, and building

31

morphology; energy consumption issues; building design; natural topography of the land; and how the housing estate compacts with the natural land for preservation and optimisation (Ibem and Azuh, 2011; Ihuah and Kakulu, 2014). Another unavoidable issue is weather conditions such that it is often responsible for chemical reaction of building materials and other components of the housing estate. For instance, the atmospheric pollution associated with acid rain, causes rapid deterioration of some housing materials (Patton, 1988), and the use of such material again in maintenance work will have an impact on the short-term failure of the housing estate condition.

All of these issues require a specialised and well-experienced maintenance contractor to perform the housing estate maintenance work and management effectively. A good maintenance contractor as opined by Al-Hazmi (1995) is cherished with the quality of being a confirmed performer, understands and knows the cost implications and what can or cannot be done in any particular scenario, realising that regulations are built upon past performance.

Even where these issues are considered, the quality of the neighbourhood or estate community environment may be poorly habitable, the social housing estate community may not appreciate the estate since the immediate environmental conditions discriminates with the community environment. This may suffice to suggest that aesthetic issues of the social housing estate neighbourhood environment are overlooked. Carter et. al. (1996) argued that the engineers, planners, environmentalists and decision-makers always underestimate these aesthetic issues which may become a basis for rejection or non-appreciation by the housing estate community, because of the lack of integrating community participation and involvement in the project from the beginning of the design process through project decision-