Abstract
Many citizens, researchers, civil organizations, and policymakers strive for equitable housing. Changing demographics, rising housing prices, and material and energy crises all add to the complexity of that quest. Responding to it, even on a project scale, requires a holistic view. Yet practitioners often work in niches. In contrast, an overarching, interdisciplinary understanding of equitable housing by all stakeholders is expected to bring more sustainable and just housing. In the academic literature, researchers have already defined many criteria of what equitable housing can entail. Nevertheless, this knowledge does not seep through to practitioners who design and develop equitable housing projects. Therefore, this paper proposes a prototype for an equitable housing framework. This framework is designed to facilitate an open discussion between all stakeholders in a project. To develop this framework, an explorative literature study and fifteen semi-structured interviews resulted in a long list of 418 considerations for equitable housing. These considerations are socially, financially, and environmentally oriented. To structure the considerations, they were categorized into fifteen dimensions and visualized in a doughnut-like framework. The framework is designed to encourage users to vocalize their needs and intentions, and to trigger systemic insights. It directs them towards sustainable, social, and inclusive decisions, based on the needs of all stakeholders involved. Moreover, the equitable housing framework allows understanding and analysing their thought patterns and intentions.
1. Introduction
Architects claim they are expected to be superhuman. Policymakers criticize the color of façade bricks, while waiting lists for social housing keep growing. Landlords do not want to renovate their property. Meanwhile, the rent and energy bills of their tenants reach new heights day after day. Housing is complex. A growing housing crisis in Western Europe increases the pressure on conventional support measures and further reduces the accessibility of housing. Many European countries (e.g., Austria, Belgium, Hungary, Spain, Ireland, and Estonia) experienced a large increase in the housing price-to-income ratio, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic [1]. Meanwhile in Flanders, the northern region of Belgium, 56% of dwellings do not correspond to the minimum quality requirements [2]. In general, 47% of EU residents are unsatisfied with the availability of good, affordable housing in their region [3].
Attention to good qualitative affordable (i.e., equitable) housing is needed. Vanderstraeten et al. (2018) explain the need for new housing models and concepts that correspond to changing demographics and remedy the inefficient occupancy of the housing stock [2]. On top of that, the pressing material and energy crisis in Europe urges stakeholders to consider energy and material efficiency in their housing projects. Responding to these diverse challenges, even on a project scale, requires a holistic view of the complex multi-disciplinary domain of housing. It requires that no stakeholders are under-served, and all are aware of the implications certain decisions can entail. Yet stakeholders in practice are often only confronted with a fraction of the project within their expertise. Whereas an overarching, transdisciplinary understanding of equitable housing by all stakeholders could lead to more sustainable and equitable living situations and buildings.
This article adopts the term equitable housing instead of affordable or qualitative housing, as the term equitable refers to physical, social, environmental, and financial aspects [4,5,6]. Whereas affordable housing is usually only perceived as the cost ratio of household income to housing costs [7]. The interdisciplinary nature of housing projects is stressed in the literature, where researchers often define extensive lists of criteria to explain qualitative affordable (i.e., equitable) housing [8]. Mulliner et al. (2013) [9] developed a list of 20 criteria for sustainable housing affordability. They do not only consider financial criteria, such as housing prices and rents in relation to incomes, but also safety (crime level) and many factors that concern neighborhood facilities such as public transport services, good quality schools, and shops. Karji et al. (2019) [10] conducted similar research where they define 33 indicators for social sustainability. Karji et al. also include indicators like health and risk, livability, construction, and community. Olakitan Atanda (2019) [11] expands the concept and adds indicators for cultural value (e.g., design of spaces and intercultural dialogue). The literature discussed above confirms the complex and scattered nature of equitable housing criteria and the tendency to think holistically.
The holistic and complex understanding of equitable housing seems to be developed mainly in academia. Practitioners and other non-academics appear not to be included in the target audience to whom the created knowledge is communicated. Since practitioners are the ones who have to design, build, and organize equitable housing projects, the extensive knowledge, developed in academia, should be transferred and communicated to them. Clear structuring and simplification of the concept could be a necessary step to include non-academic stakeholders in the pre-existing knowledge on equitable housing. This article develops a prototype for a visual representation of equitable housing, to communicate and give an overview of this complex concept to practitioners and non-academics. Therefore, the research discussed in this paper answers the following questions:
- How can we understand and structure the notion of equitable housing in the context of a project?
- How can we bypass the complexity of equitable housing for non-academics?
- If it is so, how could a visual framework empower and guide practitioners?
An explorative literature study and semi-structured interviews with practitioners were set up to create a thorough understanding of the criteria considered in equitable housing. The goal of this research was to bring together pre-existing knowledge and prototype a framework that simply communicates this knowledge.
Visualizing the complex and systemic nature of an equitable housing project in a comprehensible way could help stakeholders in developing inclusive and equitable housing projects [12]. This research proposes a prototype for an equitable housing framework that could serve as a base for an open discussion between stakeholders in a housing project. The framework is designed to encourage them to think systemically and visualize their intentions. It is expected to guide them towards making sustainable, social, and inclusive decisions, based on the needs of all stakeholders involved. It could be used when designing, drawing up, and analyzing housing projects.
2. Materials and Methods
The methodology of the research presented in this article consists of two phases: (A) gathering and structuring existing criteria and knowledge on equitable housing, explained in Section 2.1, and (B) developing a framework to communicate this knowledge to non-academic stakeholders, explained in Section 2.2. Figure 1 gives an overview of the methodology.
Figure 1.
Overview of the methodology applied in this research.
2.1. Gathering and Structuring Existing Criteria and Knowledge on Equitable Housing
An explorative, systematic, international literature study was set up to establish an in-depth understanding of the different criteria for equitable housing. To broaden the search for housing criteria, the literature search did not only focus on equitable housing. Sustainable housing, social housing, and affordable housing were also considered, as these are all part of the broader definition of equitable housing as an element of social and sustainable transition [13,14]. This query resulted in a selection of six journal articles over a period of ten years. As a result, all criteria discussed in the studied articles were collected in a long list of 219 considerations.
Since the outcome of this research is aimed at practitioners, their experiences and views played an important role in developing a shared definition of equitable housing. In addition to the literature study, a series of twenty-one semi-structured interviews allowed us to further define equitable housing from a non-academic perspective. Taking a qualitative approach suitable for this exploration, semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders were organized. At the beginning of the study in November 2020, e-mail invitations were sent to twenty-four practitioners in housing projects, i.e., architects, sustainability engineers, (social) housing developers, and residents. All invitees had a link to one or more forerunner housing projects in the Belgian context. Appendix A shows the distribution of experiences of the interviewees. From these invites, fifteen participants responded. The interviewees were questioned about their vision of equitable housing. This resulted in a spontaneous conversation where they related the topic to their experiences and expertise. Table 1 gives an overview of the interviewees and their experience in the housing sector. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded with NVivo software. Together, the literature study and the interviews resulted in an in-depth list of considerations for equitable housing projects with international and regional insights (Appendix A). These considerations were then grouped into fifteen dimensions. These dimensions are distributed over four categories: living, financing, dwelling, and using. The considerations were combined in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet wherein considerations could be sorted by dimension.
Table 1.
Fifteen dimensions of equitable housing.
2.2. Developing a Model/Framework to Communicate This Knowledge to Non-Academic Stakeholders
The fifteen dimensions, defined in phase A, were then visualized in a framework that aligned with the goals of the research: simplifying the complex concept of equitable housing and encouraging systemic thinking. By exploring pre-existing systemic design models [15,16,17], a visualization that aligned most with the goal of the research was chosen. A prototype for the framework was developed and improved iteratively. Finally, in further research, the potential of the framework as a workshop format was illustrated with practitioners in two existing projects [18].
3. Results
The results are divided into four sections. Section 3.1 and Section 3.2 of the results section correspond to phases A and B in the methodology. Based on case studies and examples, Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 give an overview of the workings and the uses of the equitable housing framework.
3.1. Gathering and Structuring Existing Criteria and Knowledge on Equitable Housing
The literature study resulted in a list of 219 considerations. Similarly, from the interviews with practitioners, a list of 241 considerations was collected (Appendix B). The length and diversity of these lists confirm the complex nature of equitable housing. Communicating these considerations with practitioners and policymakers required simplifying and structuring the list. Therefore, the considerations were grouped into fifteen dimensions. Together, these dimensions are designed to present a holistic perspective of equitable housing, as they are situated within four categories: living (i.e., lifestyle), financing, dwelling (i.e., the physical building), and using. Four dimensions are situated between categories: comfort (using and living), solidarity (living and financing), initial costs (financing and dwelling), and service life (dwelling and using). These are dimensions that link two categories together. An overview and explanation of each dimension can be found in Table 1. Appendix B shows the complete list of considerations from the literature review and the interviews after merging similar considerations and structuring them according to the dimensions.
For many dimensions, the literature and the interviews had similar findings, however, in some dimensions, differences could be detected. Figure 2 shows how the initial price is rarely mentioned as a consideration in the literature, compared to the considerations mentioned in the interviews. This is surprising, since many interviewees suggested that the initial price of building elements was often the main driver for decision-making. The other dimensions are often balanced with the initial price. Yet many interviewees also explained how reductions in the initial price must not come at the expense of basic living qualities. Furthermore, many stakeholders stressed that the time and budget that goes to each stakeholder are important in making a housing project more equitable. A large part of a project’s budget might go to stakeholders, who do not have a largely positive influence.
Figure 2.
Relative distribution of considerations over the different dimensions in the literature (dark grey) and the interviews (light grey) [9,10,11,19,20,21].
The perception of the term “safety” was different in the interviews compared to the literature. In the literature, safety was mentioned as protection from hurricanes, crime prevention, and protection from toxic materials, epidemics, and other health hazards. Contrarily, interviewees rarely spoke of this form of safety. Instead, safety was perceived as technical and fire safety. One interviewee spoke of housing security to make households feel safe, so they can focus on other aspects of their lives.
Efficient water use was often mentioned in the literature study, while the interviewees concentrated more on energy efficiency. Thermal energy efficiency, like insulating a house and installing (collective) heat pumps, was the focus of the experiences of the interviewees especially. Waste management and decreasing internal energy of materials were on their minds, but it was not yet a deciding consideration in decision-making in their projects.
From the list of considerations several patterns could be observed. Some considerations were straightforward, such as “hygiene, clean dwellings”, “proximity of public transport”, and “enough indoor daylight”. However, many considerations, mainly coming from the interviews, revolved around balancing various implications of decisions. For example, interviewees spoke about the balance stakeholders must strike between investing in more comfort for the residents or lowering the initial price of the project. Given the high standards of comfort regulations in Belgium (i.e., acoustics, living space, and thermal comfort), stakeholders are already obliged to invest high sums of money, often leaving little space for more investments in comfort. These regulations often drive stakeholders to buy cheaper building elements with initially lower initial prices, but with many uncertainties in the long-term durability.
Balances between scale, initial price, maintenance costs, the total cost of ownership, responsibility, and social contact often came back during the interviews. From a financing perspective, a larger scale can lead to collective investment and thus lower initial prices. Collective investment was praised for collaboratively developing a housing project and making certain projects feasible for lower-income households. A distinction was made between enlarging the scale to improve solidarity and financial feasibility and enlarging the project scale to reduce the initial price per stakeholder. The first one refers to collective investment and working together. In some cases stakeholders even opt for an uneven distribution in the investment each household makes. Whereas the second one is more individual. Furthermore, larger scales were claimed to enable more liveliness in collective areas and allow more activities to take place. However, when the scale becomes too large, residents will become anonymous, which might then again reduce the liveliness of the project. This is related to the amount of responsibility and social contact residents have with the building and with the other residents. Furthermore, in a cohousing project, for example, the scale must be large enough so the responsibilities can be divided, without putting too much burden on one person. Yet when the scale becomes too large, social control will be lost, and the responsibilities might not be executed as desired.
Considerations in the list stressed the importance of a clear definition of financial risks and the responsibilities of all stakeholders. Responsibilities should not only point towards residents but also the responsibilities of architects, contractors, and (co-)owners. Different financing models have different divisions of responsibilities. For example, developing a cooperative housing project requires shareholders to take up responsibilities such as voting, investing in the cooperative, and paying a monthly fee. A sense of responsibility corresponds to a sense of ownership, not only for residents but also for producers and housing companies. Interviewees explained how, generally, the more a sense of ownership exists amongst residents the more responsibility they will feel towards a project. This is strengthened by the participation of residents and nearby neighbors, especially in the process of decision-making. In cases where residents come from minority groups, participation can have an empowering effect and include people who were previously silenced in the housing debate. The responsibilities of each stakeholder must be clearly defined and must correspond to the stakeholder’s capabilities. Considerations in the list also implied that decision-making should happen democratically between all financially-involved stakeholders.
The list illustrates the networks of decisions, considerations, and balances that researchers and non-academics are dealing with when designing and studying equitable housing. They often balance several decisions, without having an overview of the implications this has on other stakeholders. Given the complexity, it is not surprising that stakeholders cannot grasp a holistic view of the concept.
3.2. Developing a Model/Framework to Communicate Housing Equitability to Non-Academic Stakeholders
In phase A, a definition for equitable housing was developed through a list based on a literature study and interviews with practitioners. The following section of this article develops a framework prototype to further structure and visualize this holistic insight and definition, and in doing so make it actionable for practitioners.
Following the observation above that many balances must be found within and between dimensions, this research approaches equitable housing as an equilibrium between interconnected dimensions. The importance of each dimension over the others is highly context specific. A cohousing project, for example, might concentrate on the social contact between its inhabitants, while a house for disabled people might pay more attention to comfort in terms of accessibility with wheelchairs. Either way, a house for disabled people should still consider the amount of privacy and social contact their residents should experience. Therefore stakeholders might pay more attention to a certain dimension, like in the ranking of criteria by Karji et al. (2017), however, the other dimensions should still be considered [10]. Therefore, in the framework for equitable housing developed in this research, all dimensions were portrayed on the same level, with visually equal importance. Inspired by the doughnut economy model by Raworth (2014), this equivalence is symbolized by placing the dimensions on a circle [22], see Figure 3.
Figure 3.
To create an equitable housing project, stakeholders should strive to stay in between the defined limits (black area).
The larger the radius of the circle is the more of a certain dimension is present in the project. Dimensions are constrained by lower and upper limits. For example, a minimum sum of maintenance costs is required to prevent a building from decay, i.e., the lower limit. On the other hand, there is also a maximum sum of maintenance costs, above which stakeholders cannot afford the costs, or it is simply not worth it. In the case of maintenance costs, limits are quantitative. The limits of the social contact dimension, for example, must be more qualitative as this dimension balances between privacy and meeting someone’s social needs. Limits create the boundaries needed for the solution space within which designers can be creative [23]. For a housing project to be equitable, all design decisions must be balanced between the lower and upper limit of each dimension, i.e., the black area. The exact limits and solutions are context-specific and will vary depending on the project and the stakeholders involved in the decision-making. Defining one dimension will inevitably influence other dimensions; users must thus think systemically when using the framework. Figure 4 illustrates another way in which the upper and under limits of social contact can be filled in as well as how a solution can be found between limits.
Figure 4.
Illustration of possible limits and solution for the dimension ‘social contact’.
Quantitative data can be added to the framework to define limits, for example, the limit for the initial costs can be the maximum amount residents can acquire as a mortgage. Yet the outcome of the framework was deliberately left qualitative. Recent sustainable design tools, like Envision or LEED, allow users to calculate their social sustainability rating or certification through a scoring mechanism [24,25]. They easily give the user an indication of how sustainable or social their project is, according to the tool. However, these tools can become like a checklist where designers try to tick off boxes to reach a higher score without questioning whether the elements on the checklist would be beneficial to the project [26]. Therefore, the framework for equitable housing focuses more on the discussion that can arise between different stakeholders and how one design decision can ignite a series of consequences for other dimensions. Rather than obtaining a score, the framework leads towards an inclusive equilibrium of design decisions that fit within the limits indicated by different stakeholders.
3.3. Systemic Decision Mechanisms
Given the systemic nature of equitable housing, one decision will impact various dimensions. As a result, stakeholders must keep in mind the under and upper limits of these dimensions to come to the most desirable solution. This is already visible from how the considerations in the list express the need to balance different dimensions, but through four examples, this section will give a deeper illustration of this interconnection.
For many people, privacy is an important notion, as it is often associated with the perception of a safe home. Several dimensions interact in the notion of privacy. The most obvious dimension to link to privacy is social contact, with privacy meaning a limit on how much social contact someone needs. However, privacy can also be a safety measurement. Certain safety measures, e.g., cameras, can invade a person’s privacy; but there should also be enough safety measures to ensure an inhabitant’s privacy, e.g., locked doors. The housing typology of a project influences the privacy of its inhabitants. Depending on the spaces inhabitants share, privacy will be experienced in different ways (adequate living space). The scale of a project can also impact privacy. A single-family house with a fence around the garden will provide more privacy than an apartment block where neighbors share hallways or even other living spaces. Privacy as a design criterion thus contains social contact, safety, adequate living space, and scale. Depending on the project, privacy might impact even more dimensions than these.
The dimension of safety can also be linked to several other dimensions in the framework. A study by Attia (2021) [27] examines the level of safety through the case study of the Prince Fawaz project in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The study shows how a balance in social contact in spaces can impact the (perception of) safety. They describe how access to certain spaces in a project should be controlled to ensure compatibility between outsiders and residents, and to be able to identify unwanted intruders. In the equitable housing framework, this argument would be interpreted as an upper limit of social contact. Magar also mentions how controlling and limiting spaces can create segregated islands of projects, often leading to encouraging criminal activity and increasing fear of crime. Furthermore, the case study showed how matching the residents’ and strangers’ movements can increase the sense of security. Therefore an under limit for social contact can be defined as making certain spaces public enough to not create segregation, and matching strangers’ and residents’ movements to provide a higher level of security [27].
Another example of how dimensions influence each other is the decision to share living spaces. This decision impacts at least five dimensions of the equitable housing framework. Households can decide to collectively invest (solidarity) in shared living spaces, to reduce the initial price needed to build these spaces, and reduce the total cost of ownership needed to maintain and renovate these spaces in the future. Furthermore, by sharing certain spaces like a kitchen, living room, and laundry room, residents can eliminate these amenities from their private spaces, reducing their personal living spaces (adequate living space). Sharing living spaces will also result in more interaction with one’s neighbors and thus an increase in social contact. Stakeholders should, therefore, keep in mind the type and number of living spaces the inhabitants are willing to share. In some cases, residents even share certain spaces, like workshops or gardens, with the neighborhood.
The impact of sharing small spaces was illustrated through an article written by Rosa-Jimenez et al. (2022) [28]. They explain how during the pandemic, residents in small apartments had to balance their needs within their available living space. Imposing the thought process of the equitable housing framework on their study allows one to identify the under limit for adequate living space as the need for a space to exercise, to work, to live and to perform leisure activities. For comfort, under limits could be identified as obtaining a comfortable temperature, orientation of the spaces to have sunlight in areas such as the terrace, and to have qualitative views. They also identified how social contact should be balanced between having enough personal space to perform daily activities, such as making videocalls without hindering the other residents (upper limit), and obtaining enough social contact with people from outside the household, for example, by looking from their terrace (under limit). Using these limits as guidelines when designing small apartment buildings could improve the residents’ living quality [28].
3.4. Using the Framework for Informed Decision-Making in Social, Financial, and Technical Sustainable Investments
Sustainable building solutions are not excluded from the systemic mechanisms of decision-making. Therefore, this section illustrates how certain sustainable investments can impact several dimensions at once.
One interviewee explained how using straw as insulation was for them a valuable experience. Aside from the low environmental impact of the production process, this material was easy to build by oneself. This allowed them to organize workshops and include people who were eager to learn the building techniques for straw insulation (social contact and responsibility). Building by themselves and thus eliminating labor costs reduced the initial cost significantly. However, to reach the insulation level (energy and water use) imposed by the Flemish government, walls insulated with straw must be significantly thicker than when insulated with conventional materials, like polyurethane. As a result, to stay within the building boundaries imposed by the local authorities, many projects which use this building method must reduce the indoor living spaces to compensate for the thickness of the straw insulation (adequate living space). This example shows how one sustainable building solution impacts various dimensions.
Another project illustrated the need for inclusive decision-making when implementing sustainable building systems. The project consisted of an apartment building with a mix of social and owner-occupied housing. A neighborhood contract, imposed by the local authorities, insisted that the housing developer would provide a urine filtering system to water the plants in a public garden next to the project, thus limiting the city’s water use. However, given the large initial cost of this system, other maybe more impactful decisions, for example, reusing materials, were dismissed due to high expenses. Furthermore, the maintenance costs of ducts and the technical installation of a urine filter system would be indirectly passed on to the residents living in the apartments through their rent or collective building costs (total cost of usership). When opting for sustainable solutions in equitable housing projects, stakeholders must question first which dimensions they will impact and who will benefit from the solution.
Following the decision-making approach of the framework, stakeholders could adopt a bottom-up approach and include representatives for residents in the process of decision-making to improve the inclusiveness of their sustainable decisions. One interviewee explained how, in their project, the participatory process was empowering for the residents, who were before often dismissed from the debate on housing. This process helped to shape a sense of ownership of the project amongst residents. Involving (future) residents in the decision-making process can help other stakeholders to understand the financial and physical abilities and willingness of residents to use sustainable design solutions. Moreover, it can also inform residents about the sustainable strategies in the project and how to use them to create the least environmental impact (responsibility). However, Eikelboom et al. (2021) [29] warn that involving residents too intensely might lead to indecisiveness. Furthermore, participatory processes can be long and intense. For residents who do not have the time, the intense participatory process might become a burden rather than a chance to be involved [29]. Nevertheless, bottom-up approaches and involving users in a design process prevents making sustainable decisions that will not be used optimally or even burden the users. As a result, these interventions will often not make the environmental impact they were meant to.
Sustainable and circular decisions, like other design decisions, should therefore consider the equitable housing dimensions they have an impact on. Millar et al. (2019) [30] suggest the missing links between social welfare and circular economy [30]. Therefore, using the equitable housing framework guides practitioners, researchers, and even policymakers to understand and visualize the implications of the circular and sustainable decisions they want to impose, and guides them to make supported decisions with social and environmental impact.
4. Conclusions
The framework prototype developed in this research, structures and visualizes the complex concept of equitable housing. The list of considerations, based on the literature and semi-structured interviews, provides a holistic and diverse image of what the notion of equitable housing entails. Yet it also highlights the complexity stakeholders face when developing equitable housing projects, and the need for an understandable communication of the academic notion of equitable housing towards practice. Structuring the list of considerations into fifteen dimensions over four categories creates the base for the visualization of the prototype of the framework for equitable housing. This framework approaches equitable housing as a highly context-specific equilibrium between all the different dimensions. Through the aforementioned examples, the strong connections between the fifteen dimensions in the framework, as well as the necessary balances, trends and patterns, become visible. They indicate the systemic nature of design decisions in housing projects.
For sustainable design decisions to have an impact, stakeholders must consider the physical, financial, and organizational needs of all stakeholders involved in the project. Using the framework as an underlayer for discussions between various stakeholders guides designers to these more inclusive decisions. The output of the framework is qualitative, focusing mainly on the discussion arising from the framework, and leaving enough room for interpretation by the stakeholders, but also allowing quantitative argumentation.
For architects and housing project designers, the framework is designed to structure a complex concept into a more manageable notion. The framework is a guide to making better-informed decisions. As some dimensions on the framework, for example, adequate living space and social contact, refer to the users’ needs, the framework moves away from the top-down way of designing where only the project developer and the architect design the building, but rather involves or considers other stakeholders such as residents and policymakers to develop a more inclusive design.
For researchers, the equitable housing framework opens opportunities for analyzing existing and future projects and practices. By analyzing and understanding stakeholders’ thought patterns and intentions, researchers can guide non-academics in developing equitable housing or analyze the decision-making mechanisms practitioners apply. This could then be linked to sustainable building decisions, which opens possibilities for researchers to develop tools that can help practitioners to apply sustainable design aspects equitably.
For clients and public authorities, the framework is an opportunity to broaden their view on the added value of equitable housing and give them more insight into their role in the design process.
In further research, the framework prototype was developed into a workshop format and retrospectively used to analyze, together with stakeholders, their decision process during the conception of an equitable housing project. The actual applicability and impact of the framework, when used as a design tool, on the equitability of existing design cases should be examined in future research. The current version of the framework prototype was developed in a Belgian, Western European context. For projects in other regions of the world, the framework might need some minor adaptations to stay in line with cultural and climatological differences.
Given that every project is unique, the framework allows enough room for interpretation and does not make judgements on the values of stakeholders. Moreover, it allows design teams to think further than their discipline. The framework allows stakeholders from various niches to speak the same language and discuss their needs. It does not tell the users exactly what to do but guides and opens the conversation on topics the stakeholders might not have thought about or were not able to express before.
Author Contributions
The conceptualization, the outlining of the methodology, the original draft preparation and the making of the figures was performed by M.L.; For writing—review and editing, M.L. and W.G. were involved. The study was supervised by N.D.T. and W.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research is funded by Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO) through the strategic basic research grant with grant number 1SD8523N.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank all the participating interviewees for their valuable input and feedback.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A
Table A1.
Interviewees were experienced within various housing concepts and strategies.
Table A1.
Interviewees were experienced within various housing concepts and strategies.
| Circular Building | Sustainable Building | Cohousing | Cooperative Housing | Social Housing | Tiny Living | Community Land Trust | Densification | Self-Building | Housing as a Product | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Architect (ARCH1) | x | x | x | |||||||
| Architect (ARCH2) | x | x | x | |||||||
| Architect (ARCH3) | x | x | x | x | ||||||
| Architect (ARCH4) | x | x | x | |||||||
| Architect (ARCH5) | x | x | ||||||||
| Cooperative housing developer (COOP1) | x | x | ||||||||
| Cohousing inhabitant (CHI1) | x | x | x | |||||||
| Architect (ARCH6) | x | x | x | x | x | |||||
| Architect (ARCH7) | x | x | x | |||||||
| Researcher (RSH1) | x | x | x | x | ||||||
| Social housing developer (SHD1) | x | x | ||||||||
| Housing-as -a -product company (PRD1) | x | x | x | |||||||
| Self-build company (PRD2) | x | x | ||||||||
| Community land trust organisation (CLT1) | x | x | ||||||||
| Cohousing inhabitant (CHI2) | x | x | x |
Appendix B
Table A2.
List of considerations derived from interviews and literature.
Table A2.
List of considerations derived from interviews and literature.
| Comfort | |
| allowing residents to decorate and appropriate a space | ARCH7 |
| Answering today’s comfort needs (needs today are not the same as 40 years ago) | ARCH1, ARCH3, RSH1, PRD1, CHI2 |
| assistance for people with disabilities | ARCH1 |
| balancing level of responsibility to the residents’ abilities | ORG1 |
| comfortable indoor temperature | CHI1 |
| ease of moving from one dwelling to another | ARCH5 |
| enough indoor daylight | ARCH1, ARCH6, A. [19] |
| furnishing a home to become a comfortable living space | RSH1 |
| hygiene, clean dwellings | SHD1 |
| making deliberate choices that balance aesthetics with initial price (production costs) | SHD1 |
| making deliberate choices that balance comfort with ease of building and designing for practitioners | CHI2 |
| making deliberate choices that balance comfort with initial price (production costs) | PRD1, ORG1, CLT1 |
| making deliberate choices that balance comfort with total cost of ownership (ex. efficient techniques for thermal comfort) | CHI2 |
| making deliberate choices that balance comfort with total cost of usership | ARCH3 |
| making deliberate choices that balance living space and housing quality | ARCH6, ARCH3 |
| making deliberate choices that balance the initial price and long-term costs | CHI1 |
| making deliberate choices that balance total living space and storage space | ARCH6 |
| optimal indoor air quality | CHI1, [10] |
| optimal orientation of the building | ARCH1 |
| using materials that answer acoustical needs and legislations | ARCH1, ARCH7, SHD1, CHI2, [19] |
| using materials that answer thermal needs and legislations | ARCH3, SHD1, CLT1, ARCH1, ORG1, [19] |
| health impacts of energy sources | [11] |
| health impacts of water consumption | [11] |
| Development in a site with relatively flat topography to enable walking and biking | [10] |
| Inconvenience for inhabitants during renovation works | [19] |
| Accessibility of the building | [19,21] |
| quality for inhabitants. | [19] |
| Use the renovation as opportunity to improve living environment for inhabitants and eliminate the stigma of social housing | [19] |
| health impacts of IEQ | [11] |
| Health impacts of materials | [11] |
| pollution | [11] |
| Elimination of nuisances (such as poor air quality, odors, noise, vibration, congestion, dust, and pollution) during construction | [10] |
| Enhancing livability and social well-being | [10] |
| Quality of housing | [9] |
| comfortable and healthy indoor environment | [21] |
| furniture arrangement | [20] |
| orientation | [20] |
| space position | [20] |
| Neighborhood | |
| amenities provided by local government (sewage system) | COOP1 |
| answering local building regulations | SHD1, CHI2, ORG1 |
| balancing densification with housing quality and total cost of ownership | ARCH6 |
| balancing living space, greenspace, and collective spaces | ARCH3, ARCH6 |
| balancing location and comfort (noise, …) | CHI2 |
| balancing location and initial cost | SHD1, CHI2, CLT1, PRD1, [20] |
| collaboration with local authorities to decrease total cost of usership | CHI2, PRD1, CLT1 |
| collective spaces as a catalyst for social contact in the neighborhood | ORG1 |
| dense building typologies as a way to decrease total cost of ownership | PRD1 |
| dense building typologies as a way to open up qualitative greenspace | ARCH6, [21] |
| functional greenspace as a way to improve the neighborhood | RSH1, CHI2, ORG1 |
| greenspaces as a catalyst for social contact | CHI1, ARCH3, ARCH6, SHD1 |
| inhabiting unused spaces to decrease total cost of usership | ORG1 |
| linking architecture to surroundings | ARCH6 |
| proximity of (semi-)public greenspace | CHI1, RSH1, ARCH6, CHI2, [9,10] |
| proximity of learning facilities (schools, library, university) | ARCH3, [9,10] |
| proximity of medical support | ARCH3, [9,10] |
| proximity of public transport | ARCH1, SHD1, [9,10,19] |
| proximity of social amenities | ARCH6, [10] |
| site accessibility for construction site traffic | ARCH7 |
| Urban mining possibilities in the surroundings to decrease initial costs | ARCH7 |
| neighborhood involvement in design and planning phases | [11] |
| Influencing neighboring communities positively | [10] |
| integrate related industries of sustainable housing | [21] |
| minimize biodiversity loss | [21] |
| Development in a neighborhood with positive public reputation (not areas famous for a high number of crimes, degraded land, etc.) X28— | [10] |
| Quality of public space | [19] |
| project location for public access | [11] |
| Accessibility and high connectivity of streets and roads X29— | [10] |
| Designing the project in a way that represents the local character and identity of the community | [10] |
| Encouraging businesses to make investments in the area (the creation of incentives for businesses to relocate to the area) X9— | [10] |
| Green landscape, vegetation (trees, flora, and fauna in neighborhood) X32— | [10] |
| Reflecting public art in neighborhood (such as consideration of wall cladding materials and color harmonization) X31— | [10] |
| Training local labor and hiring local business | [10] |
| Access to childcare | [9] |
| Access to employment opportunities | [9,10,21] |
| Access to leisure facilities | [9] |
| Access to shops | [9] |
| Availability of waste management facilities | [9] |
| Deprivation in area | [9] |
| Desirability of neighborhood area | [9] |
| Presence of environmental problems (e.g., litter, traffic) | [9] |
| mixed land using | [21] |
| Reduced transportation costs | [21] |
| landscape | [20] |
| neighborhood | [20] |
| Social contact | |
| answering the diverse social needs of residents of alternative family situations | CHI1 |
| balancing collective amenities and private living spaces | ARCH3, ARCH6 |
| balancing densification and types of social contact | ARCH6 |
| balancing project scale and types of social contact | ARCH1, CHI1 |
| balancing shared spaces and types of social contact | ARCH5, ORG1 |
| balancing social contact within a project and social contact with the neighborhood | RSH1, ARCH6, ORG1 |
| cohesive resident-group in cohousing projects | CHI1, ORG1 |
| collective spaces as a catalyst for social contact in the neighborhood | ORG1, |
| collective spaces as a catalyst for social contact within the project | CHI1, ARCH3, ARCH6, SHD1, ORG1 |
| encouraging activation of collective spaces | CHI1, [10,11] |
| greenspaces as a catalyst for social contact | CHI1, ARCH3, ARCH6, SHD1 |
| housing project as a social support network; sense of community | ORG1, [20,21] |
| transparent communication during collective decision making | CHI1, ARCH6, CHI2, CLT1 |
| space separation | [20] |
| design of a place which increases social interaction with common places (fluid spaces in the neighborhood) | [11] |
| Encouragement of social interactions among the community | [10] |
| design of a place which increases social interactions within buildings | [11] |
| intercultural dialogue | [11] |
| harmonious social relationships | [21] |
| Social factor Family communication | [20] |
| Social factor Individualism | [20] |
| Social factor party | [20] |
| Safety | |
| Social factor Social communication | [20] |
| building insurance | PRD2 |
| follow regulations on inspections of technical equipment | PRD2 |
| housing security | CLT1, [21] |
| security of proper execution of building techniques | PRD2 |
| using materials to answer to fire safety and fire safety regulations | ARCH1 |
| Use of sustainable materials with low environmental footprint and health risks | [19] |
| Mitigating the risks associated with construction activities, equipment, and materials | [10] |
| Reliability of services by developing backup systems to reduce risks of service interruptions | [10] |
| Mitigating the risks associated with natural disasters (such as flood, storm, earthquake, hurricanes, etc.) | [10] |
| compliance to earthquake resistance code | [11] |
| Feeling of safety | [11] |
| Crime prevention (such as conducting constant surveillance) | [9,10] |
| Mitigating the risks associated with man-made hazards (such as hazardous materials spills, epidemics, biohazards, etc.) | [10] |
| Responsibility | |
| collaboration with local authorities to decrease total cost of usership (ex. leaseholds, subsidies) | PRD1, CHI2, CLT1, ORG1, SHD1 |
| allowing residents to decorate and appropriate a space | ARCH7 |
| allowing the residents to choose their level of responsibility | ARCH7, ORG1 |
| Balancing the number of paid stakeholders with initial and long-term costs | ARCH1, ARCH5, PRD1 |
| balancing building time and initial costs | CLT1 |
| balancing building time and involvement of residents in construction | CHI2, ARCH3, [11,21] |
| balancing building time and involvement of residents in decision-making | ORG1 |
| balancing customization of dwellings and total cost of ownership | PRD1 |
| balancing expertise and time of stakeholders and initial price (ex. architect, engineer, and housing developers’ fees) | PRD2, ARCH7, CLT1, PRD1, ARCH5, ARCH1 |
| balancing level of self-building to initial price | PRD2, ARCH7 |
| balancing responsibilities and capital accumulation | COOP1, PRD1, CLT1, CHI2 |
| balancing responsibilities and total cost of ownership | PRD1, RSH1, CHI2, ORG1 |
| balancing scale and the role of residents in the decision-making process | ARCH1, CHI1 |
| clear definition of organizational responsibilities of stakeholders | ARCH1, ARCH7, SHD1, CLT1 |
| different business models correspond to different (sense of) responsibility | ARCH5, CHI1, ARCH3, RSH1, SHD1, CHI2 |
| influence of (sense of) ownership on responsibility (of producers, companies) | PRD1, CHI2 |
| influence of (sense of) ownership on responsibility of inhabitants | ARCH5, RSH1, CHI2 |
| involvement of people with disabilities to answer their needs | ARCH1 |
| level of involvement of residents in constructing the building and the corresponding responsibilities | PRD2, CHI2, CHI1 |
| level of involvement of residents in decision-making and the corresponding responsibilities | ORG1, CLT1 |
| level of knowledge-sharing with other projects | ORG1 |
| sense of responsibility of the stakeholders towards environment or neighborhood | CHI2, ARCH3, [11,21] |
| Participation in decision-making | CLT1, [11,21] |
| transparency and awareness of the capabilities of stakeholders to make certain decisions | ARCH7, PRD2, CHI2, CLT1 |
| transparent communication during collective decision-making | CHI1, ARCH6, CHI2, CLT1 |
| Simple technical systems to be understood by users | PRD2 |
| using materials to facilitate self-building | CHI1, ARCH7 |
| level of democratic decision-making of all financially involved stakeholders | ARCH5, CHI1 |
| access to choice of natural resources | [11] |
| effectively utilizing resources | [21] |
| Meeting the community needs in pursuing development X6— | [10] |
| Access to information | [11] |
| ability to take actions to environmental problems | [11] |
| access to social information about green building | [11] |
| biodiversity | [11] |
| creative placemaking opportunities | [11] |
| Formation of governance structure | [11] |
| User participation | [11] |
| willingness to improve environment | [11] |
| Ideological factor attitude | [20] |
| Ideological factor Value | [20] |
| Psychological factor Identity | [20] |
| Social factor Social structure | [20] |
| Solidarity | |
| financially involved stakeholders must agree on the initial price of the project | ARCH5 |
| collaboration with local authorities to decrease total cost of usership (ex. leaseholds, subsidies) | PRD1, CHI2, CLT1, ORG1, SHD1 |
| balancing financial gains and ethical considerations | ORG1 |
| clear definition of financial risks and responsibilities of stakeholders | SHD1, CHI2, CLT1 |
| collective exploitation of collective spaces in a housing project | CHI2 |
| collective investment in land costs | ARCH6, CLT1 |
| collective investment in a project | RSH1, ARCH6, COOP1, ARCH5, CHI1, RSH1, CHI2, CLT1 |
| collective investment in amenities (ex. car sharing) | ARCH6 |
| collective investment in energy costs | ARCH6 |
| collective renting to decrease total cost of usership | CHI1 |
| ensuring (social, financial) benefits for all involved stakeholders | ARCH2 |
| ensuring long term affordability of the housing project | CLT1 |
| influence of (sense of) ownership on responsibility of inhabitants | ARCH5, RSH1, CHI2 |
| level of democratic decision-making of all financially involved stakeholders | ARCH5, CHI1 |
| possibility to balance the costs on household income | ARCH5, COOP1 |
| Reducing social inequity by enabling residents from a wide range of economic levels, household sizes, and age groups to live in one community X5— | [10] |
| equitability and fairness of housing distribution | [21] |
| minimize social segregation | [21] |
| social acceptability | [21] |
| Total cost of ownership | |
| balancing financial gains and ethical considerations | ORG1 |
| balancing responsibilities and total cost of ownership | PRD1, RSH1, CHI2, ORG1 |
| clear definition of financial risks and responsibilities of stakeholders | SHD1, CHI2, CLT1 |
| different financing models relate to different total costs of ownership | CHI2, PRD1 |
| efficiency of building components to reduce total cost of ownership | RSH1, ORG1, [21] |
| enhancing building scale to decrease total cost of ownership | ARCH3, CHI1, PRD1 |
| linking capital-accumulation and total cost of ownership | PRD1 |
| making long-term investments to decrease total cost of ownership | CHI1, RSH1, ARCH6, ARCH7, PRD1, CLT1 |
| Interest rates and mortgage availability | ARCH7, [9] |
| balancing expertise and time of stakeholders and initial price (ex. architect, engineer and housing developers’ fees) | PRD2, ARCH7, CLT1, PRD1, ARCH5, ARCH1 |
| total cost of ownership in relation to owners’ financial abilities | RSH1, PRD1, [21] |
| understanding of the benefits and risks of (co-)owning a property | SHD1, CHI2, ORG1, CLT1 |
| Availability of affordable home ownership products | [9] |
| Capital accumulation | |
| balancing capital accumulation and initial costs | PRD1 |
| balancing responsibilities and capital accumulation | COOP1, PRD1, CLT1, CHI2 |
| balancing time of occupancy and capital accumulation | CHI1, ARCH6 |
| balancing total cost of usership and capital accumulation | COOP1, ARCH6, PRD1 |
| business model where everyone benefits financially | RSH1, ARCH2 |
| collective capital accumulation through collective investment | RSH1 |
| linking long-term vision with capital accumulation | ARCH3, RSH1, ARCH7, CLT1 |
| obtaining (shared) ownership | CHI1, RSH1, [20] |
| obtaining shares that do not decrease in value over time | ARCH6 |
| protection or awareness for financing models without capital accumulation | PRD1 |
| cost effectiveness | [21] |
| cost recovery | [21] |
| Initial costs | |
| collaboration with local authorities to decrease total cost of usership (ex. leaseholds, subsidies) | PRD1, CHI2, CLT1, ORG1, SHD1 |
| balancing expertise and time of stakeholders and initial price (ex. architect, engineer and housing developers’ fees) | PRD2, ARCH7, CLT1, PRD1, ARCH5, ARCH1 |
| balancing building time and initial costs | PRD2, CLT1 |
| balancing initial costs and (collective) living space | ARCH3, ORG1, CLT1, ARCH6, ARCH1 |
| balancing initial costs and ethical considerations (ex. working conditions) | ORG1 |
| balancing initial costs and reuse of materials | ARCH3 |
| balancing initial costs and service life | ORG1 |
| balancing location and initial cost | SHD1, CHI2, CLT1 |
| balancing scale, building typology and initial costs | CHI2, PRD1 |
| buying-in price of a building | SHD1 |
| choosing building methods that improve DIY, thus reducing labor costs | CHI1, ARCH7, PRD2 |
| collective investment in a project | RSH1, ARCH6, COOP1, ARCH5, CHI1, RSH1, CHI2, CLT1 |
| efficiency of building components and building process to reduce initial costs | PRD1, PRD2, CHI2, ORG1 |
| Homeowners must consider which costs they find most interesting in relation to other qualities | ARCH5 |
| balancing expertise and time of stakeholders and initial price (ex. architect, engineer and housing developers’ fees) | PRD2, ARCH7, CLT1, PRD1, ARCH5, ARCH1 |
| initial costs that improve living quality | ARCH5 |
| initial investment in a housing project | RSH1 |
| Initial price wins from technical efficiency or reusing of materials | ARCH5 |
| labor, storage and transport costs of building elements and materials | ARCH5, ARCH6, PRD1 |
| balancing location and initial cost | SHD1, CHI2, CLT1, PRD1 |
| legal costs required for starting a project | CHI2 |
| linking initial investments and total cost of ownership | ARCH3 |
| linking initial price and self-building | PRD2 |
| balancing initial costs and (collective) living space | ARCH3, ORG1, CLT1, ARCH6, RSH1 |
| making deliberate choices that balance the initial price and environmental impact | CHI1, ARCH6, ARCH7, SHD1, ARCH3, PRD2, CLT1 |
| making deliberate choices that balance aesthetics with initial price (production costs) | SHD1 |
| making deliberate choices that balance the initial price and flexibility | RSH1 |
| making deliberate choices that balance the initial price and long-term costs | CHI1, ARCH6, ARCH7, ARCH3, CLT1 |
| making deliberate choices that balance the initial price and thermal costs | ARCH3, CHI2 |
| balancing expertise and time of stakeholders and initial price (ex. architect, engineer, and housing developers’ fees) | PRD2, ARCH7, CLT1, PRD1, ARCH5, ARCH1 |
| Price per m2 dictates how many extra square meters a unit can have | ARCH5 |
| balancing initial costs and (collective) living space | ARCH3, ORG1, CLT1, ARCH6, ARCH5 |
| Using secondhand materials that decrease initial costs | CHI1, ARCH7 |
| visible immediate impact of initial costs | ARCH6, ARCH7 |
| House prices in relation to incomes | [9] |
| Reduce the financial renovation costs | [19] |
| Affordable price | [21] |
| Adequate living space | |
| Balancing collective amenities and private living spaces | ARCH6, ARCH1, ARCH3, ORG1 |
| balancing collective amenities and the responsibilities of stakeholders | ARCH3 |
| balancing initial costs and (collective) living space | ARCH3, ORG1, CLT1, ARCH6, ARCH5 |
| balancing living space, greenspace, and collective spaces | ARCH6 |
| defining essential spaces and extra spaces | ARCH5, ARCH6, RSH1 |
| encouraging activities in collective spaces | CHI1, SHD1 |
| flexibility of living spaces | ARCH6, ARCH7, CHI1, RSH1, ARCH3, CHI2, CLT1, [19,20] |
| living space should be representative for the household size | ARCH6 |
| long-term adequate living spaces | SHD1, ARCH1 |
| making deliberate choices that balance living space and housing quality | ARCH6, ARCH3 |
| making deliberate choices that balance the initial price and living space | ARCH6 |
| minimum surface regulations | SHD1, ARCH3, ORG1 |
| multifunctional spaces | ARCH5, RSH1 |
| no over- or under- population of dwellings | ARCH5, RSH1 |
| providing collective amenities that also benefit the neighborhood | ARCH3 |
| providing greenspace within the housing project | CHI1, SHD1 |
| providing spaces for small households as well as large ones | ARCH5, CHI1 |
| technical constraints that dictate possible living space | ORG1 |
| types and number of amenities in relation to the needs of residents | ARCH1, ORG1, CHI1 |
| Addition of qualitative spaces in buildings (balconies, terrace, communal space | [19] |
| Optimization of the plan organization to improvement of the internal living | [19] |
| Quality of living spaces and optimal functional organization at building level | [19] |
| design of spaces | [11] |
| house type | [20] |
| diversified housing types | [21] |
| Enlargement of the surface of living units | [19] |
| planning of space | [11] |
| adequate living spaces within small size units | [21] |
| suitability | [21] |
| Behavioral factor Activity | [20] |
| Behavioral factor Habits | [20] |
| Behavioral factor Leisure | [20] |
| Behavioral factor Work at home | [20] |
| Cultural factor Cultural activity | [20] |
| Form | [20] |
| function of space | [20] |
| size of space | [20] |
| spatial openness | [20] |
| Scale | |
| balancing scale and comfort | ARCH6 |
| balancing scale and responsibility | ARCH5, CHI1, RSH1 |
| balancing scale and reuse of materials | ARCH7 |
| balancing scale and the role of residents in the decision-making process | ARCH1, CHI1 |
| enhancing diversity of dwelling typologies through scale enlargement | ARCH5, COOP1, [21] |
| enhancing diversity of household types through scale enlargement | ARCH5 |
| enlarging project scale to improve activities in the housing project | CHI1, ARCH3, RSH1, ARCH6 |
| enlarging project scale to improve discussions with local authorities | PRD1 |
| enlarging project scale to improve solidarity and financial feasibility | ARCH1, ARCH5, COOP1, ARCH3, RSH1, ARCH6, PRD1, SHD1 |
| enlarging project scale to reduce initial price per stakeholder | RSH1, PRD1, CHI2, |
| Land use efficiency | [21] |
| number of spaces | [20] |
| Service life | |
| anticipating future energy needs | CHI2 |
| anticipating future needs of households | ARCH5, CHI1, ARCH7, SHD1, CLT1 |
| anticipating future of a project beyond one generation of households | ARCH5, SHD1, [19] |
| anticipating future renovations to decrease future renovation costs | ARCH1, ARCH5, ARCH3, RSH1, ARCH7, ORG1, ARCH6, PRD1, PES2, CLT1, [10] |
| anticipating future renovations through open plan layout | ARCH7 |
| anticipating long-term and short-term needs of households through building methods | CHI1, CLT1, ARCH3, CLT1 |
| balancing robust structures (long-term) and adaptable structures (short-term) | ARCH1, ARCH5, ARCH3, RSH1, PRD1, SHD1, CHI2, ORG1, [21] |
| being critical about the feasibility of adaptable building elements | CHI2, ORG1 |
| linking ease of maintenance and service life | RSH1, [21] |
| linking financing models with anticipated service life | ARCH6, PRD1, SHD1, CHI2, ORG1, CLT1 |
| linking ownership, responsibility, and service life | ARCH5, RSH1, ORG1 |
| making deliberate choices that balance service life and initial costs | ORG1 |
| making long-term plans to assure affordable total cost of ownership | CHI1, ARCH3, CLT1 |
| measures to counter housing speculation (assuring long-term equitable housing) | CLT1 |
| multifunctional spaces | ARCH5, RSH1, [21] |
| prepare for long trajectories when setting up participatory design processes | CLT1, ORG1 |
| providing a variety of housing typologies so households can move when their needs change | ARCH5 |
| providing timeless building comfort. (ex. natural light, higher ceilings, …) | ARCH1 |
| using opportunities for temporary housing | ORG1 |
| using what already exists today to make today’s housing | SHD1, ARCH1 |
| Quality labels of building systems | [19] |
| disaster resistance | [21] |
| end-of-life | [19] |
| Life expectancy of building components | [19] |
| Energy and water use | |
| anticipating future energy costs, needs, and regulations | ARCH5, ARCH3, PRD1, CHI2, ORG1 |
| being critical about the types of materials and techniques applied in the project | COOP1, CHI1, ARCH7, CHI2, ORG1, CLT1 |
| linking energy and water use with total cost of usership | ARCH6, PRD1 |
| linking energy-saving measures to the needs and abilities of residents (ex. willingness to use an Eco toilet) | ORG1 |
| linking initial investment and energy and water use | CHI1 |
| using materials that answer thermal needs and legislations | ARCH3, SHD1, CLT1, ARCH1, ORG1 |
| Use of sustainable materials with low environmental footprint | ARCH1, ARCH7, [19] |
| using passive design principles to decrease energy and water use (ex. solar protection) | CHI2 |
| using technical installations that are simple to install and encourage self-building | PRD2, [19] |
| using technical installations that are simple to install and maintain | RSH1, PRD2, CLT1, [19] |
| Thermal performance | [19] |
| Providing healthy drinking water for the prospective residents X12— | [10] |
| mitigation in the use of environmental resources | [11] |
| Central heating system with individual counters | [19] |
| Energy efficient electrical appliances | [19] |
| energy sources | [11] |
| water and waste management | [11] |
| Applying green building practices throughout the design and construction processes | [10] |
| Energy efficiency of housing | [9] |
| energy efficiency | [21] |
| water efficiency | [21] |
| Economical factor Technology | [20] |
| Maintenance costs | |
| making deliberate choices on comfort and maintenance costs (ex. number of elevators in a project) | ARCH5 |
| balancing total cost of usership and maintenance costs | ORG1 |
| using technical installations that are simple to install and maintain | CLT1, ARCH5, [19,21] |
| making deliberate choices on comfort and maintenance costs (ex. number of elevators in a project) | ARCH5 |
| collective maintenance responsibilities amongst residents | CHI1 |
| Rate of interventions to reduce the inconvenience for inhabitants | [19] |
| indigenous environmental management practices | [11] |
| sustainable management of hazards | [11] |
| Control over state/performance of building elements | [19] |
| Total cost of usership | |
| collaboration with local authorities to decrease total cost of usership (ex. leaseholds, subsidies) | PRD1, CHI2, CLT1, ORG1, SHD1 |
| balancing comfort with total cost of usership | ARCH3 |
| balancing initial costs and total cost of usership | ARCH5, ARCH6, PRD1, ORG1 |
| balancing living space with affordable rent | CHI1 |
| balancing scale and total cost of usership | PRD1 |
| balancing total cost of usership and capital accumulation | COOP1, ARCH6, PRD1 |
| balancing total cost of usership and housing services and amenities in the housing project | ARCH3 |
| balancing total cost of usership and total cost of ownership in an ethical way | PRD1 |
| different financing models relate to different total costs of usership (ex. leasing contracts) | ARCH3, ARCH6 |
| efficiency of building components to reduce total cost of usership | PRD1 |
| energy costs | CHI1, PRD1, [21] |
| balancing expertise and time of stakeholders and initial price (ex. architect, engineer and housing developers’ fees) | PRD2, ARCH7, CLT1, PRD1, ARCH5, ARCH1 |
| providing a variety of housing typologies with varying rent | CHI1 |
| sharing costs to reduce total cost of usership | CHI1 |
| total cost of usership in relation to users’ financial abilities | SHD1, ORG1, [9] |
| total cost of usership based on market prices | SHD1 |
| using alternative financing models to decrease total costs of usership | SHD1 |
| Affordable renting | [21] |
| other none housing related costs | [21] |
| Economical factor consumption-production | [20] |
References
- OECD. Under Pressure: The Squeezed Middle Class; OECD: Paris, France, 2022; ISBN 978-92-64-54283-9. [Google Scholar]
- Vanderstraeten, L.; Ryckewaert, M. Woningkwalitietisbewaking. Deelrapport 1: Onderzoek ter Evaluatie Van de Kwaliteitsvereisten en Het Bijhorende Meetinstrument; Steunpunt Wonen: Leuven, Belgium, 2018; p. 176. [Google Scholar]
- OECD. HC1.4. Subjective Measures on Housing; OECD: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- EPA Equitable Development in Action: What Makes Community-Driven Revitalization Models Work? 2021. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-11/r4-equitable-development-brochure_final_october-2021_508.pdf (accessed on 3 October 2022).
- European Housing Forum Policies and Systems to Ensure Equitable Access to Housing in Informal Settlements in the Global South. Europe Housing Forum 2021. 2022. Available online: https://europehousingforum.eu/equitable-access-to-housing-in-informal-settlements/ (accessed on 3 October 2022).
- Zwart, S. Maintaining an Efficient and Equitable Housing Market in Belgium; OECD: Paris, France, 2015; p. 36. [Google Scholar]
- Winters, S.; Sansen, J.; Heylen, K.; Van den Broeck, K.; Vanderstraeten, L.; Vastmans, F. Vlaamse Woonmonitor 2021; Steunpunt Wonen: Leuven, Belgium, 2021; p. 181. [Google Scholar]
- Park, J.-A.; Choi, B. Factors Affecting the Intention of Multi-Family House Residents to Age in Place in a Potential Naturally Occurring Retirement Community of Seoul in South Korea. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mulliner, E.; Smallbone, K.; Maliene, V. An Assessment of Sustainable Housing Affordability Using a Multiple Criteria Decision Making Method. Omega 2013, 41, 270–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karji, A.; Woldesenbet, A.; Khanzadi, M.; Tafazzoli, M. Assessment of Social Sustainability Indicators in Mass Housing Construction: A Case Study of Mehr Housing Project. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 50, 101697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olakitan Atanda, J. Developing a Social Sustainability Assessment Framework. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 44, 237–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stabellini, B.; Remondino, C.L.; Tamborrini, P. Data Visualization Collection. How Graphical Representation Can Inspect and Communicate Sustainability through Systemic Design. Des. J. 2017, 20, S1673–S1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patterson, J.; Schulz, K.; Vervoort, J.; van der Hel, S.; Widerberg, O.; Adler, C.; Hurlbert, M.; Anderton, K.; Sethi, M.; Barau, A. Exploring the Governance and Politics of Transformations towards Sustainability. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 24, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scoones, I.; Stirling, A.; Abrol, D.; Atela, J.; Charli-Joseph, L.; Eakin, H.; Ely, A.; Olsson, P.; Pereira, L.; Priya, R.; et al. Transformations to Sustainability: Combining Structural, Systemic and Enabling Approaches. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2020, 42, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbero, S. Systemic Design Method Guide for Policymaking: A Circular Europe on the Way; CORE: Tokyo, Japan, 2017; p. 195. [Google Scholar]
- Holling, C.S. Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems 2001, 4, 390–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sevaldson, B. Visualizing Complex Design: The Evolution of Gigamaps. In Systemic Design; Translational Systems Sciences; Jones, P., Kijima, K., Eds.; Springer Japan: Tokyo, Japan, 2018; Volume 8, pp. 243–269. ISBN 978-4-431-55638-1. [Google Scholar]
- Lespagnard, M.; Galle, W.; De Temmerman, N. The Equitable Housing Workshop. Mapping and Improving Stakeholders’ Decision-Making Process for Circular Equitable Housing Projects; IOP Publishing: Helsinki, Finland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Paduart, A. Re-Design for Change: A 4 Dimensional Renovation Approach towards a Dynamic and Sustainable Building Stock. Ph.D. Thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Zarrabi, M.; Yazdanfar, S.-A.; Hosseini, S.-B. Usage of Lifestyle in Housing Studies: A Systematic Review Paper. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2022, 37, 575–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, X.; Zuo, J.; Wu, P.; Wang, J.; Chang, R.; Wen, T. How Affordable Housing Becomes More Sustainable? A Stakeholder Study. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 427–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raworth, K. Why It’s Time for Doughnut Economics. IPPR Progress. Rev. 2017, 24, 216–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Battistoni, C.; Giraldo Nohra, C.; Barbero, S. A Systemic Design Method to Approach Future Complex Scenarios and Research Towards Sustainability: A Holistic Diagnosis Tool. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diaz-Sarachaga, J.M.; Jato-Espino, D.; Alsulami, B.; Castro-Fresno, D. Evaluation of Existing Sustainable Infrastructure Rating Systems for Their Application in Developing Countries. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 71, 491–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. Green Building Council. LEED for Building Design and Construction; USGBC: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Cambier, C.; Galle, W.; Vandervaeren, C.; Tavernier, I.; De Temmerman, N. An Analysis of Design Support Tools for Circular Building Practice. In Proceedings of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies; Littlewood, J., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C., Eds.; Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH: Split, Croatia, 2021; Volume 203, pp. 43–53. [Google Scholar]
- Attia, M. Enhancing Security in Affordable Housing: The Case of Prince Fawaz Project. J. Contemp. Urban Aff. 2021, 5, 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosa-Jimenez, C.; Jaime-Segura, C. Living Space Needs of Small Housing in the Post-Pandemic Era: Malaga as a Case Study. J. Contemp. Urban Aff. 2022, 6, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eikelenboom, M.; Long, T.B.; de Jong, G. Circular Strategies for Social Housing Associations: Lessons from a Dutch Case. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 292, 126024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Millar, N.; McLaughlin, E.; Börger, T. The Circular Economy: Swings and Roundabouts? Ecol. Econ. 2019, 158, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).