Flexible Design and Construction Strategies for Self-Help Housing in Botswana

1.1. Self-Help Housing

In housing research and practice, John F. C. Turner³ [4, 5] is widely credited with self-help housing⁴ concept and incremental construction process, as an affordable approach to housing appropriate to the economies of third world countries [6]. The theory of self-help housing as developed by Turner [4, 5] in the 1950s and 1960s and promoted by international organizations in the 1970s, led to the concept of aided self-help housing [7-9]. The most important aspect of housing research developed over the years is that self-help housing and market enabling policies have been considered to be viable approaches to addressing housing challenges in the developing world [9-11].

Self-help housing, according to Paul Oliver [12], is by the occupants by themselves, without external professional intervention. Another related concept, housing as a process, as defined by Turner [4] places key decision-making responsibilities in the hands of the inhabitants. Turner [4] argues that self-help housing as a process can adequately meet people’s housing needs and gives the dweller control over what is appropriate for them. Dwellers become active recipients or consumers of housing products resulting in houses that reflect their values and needs [4, 12]. He argues further that, “I will go beyond that to suggest that the ideal we should strive for is a model which conceives housing as an activity in which the users as a matter of economic, social and psychological common sense are the principal actors” [4]. Self-help housing is commonly practiced in Botswana as people buy and save materials for future building purposes, see Fig. (1).

Table 1.

Government Funded				Self-Help Housing
Plan	Constr.	Manage		Plan	Constr.	Manage
			SiHA	-	-	-
	-		SHHA
-	-		Owners

According to proponents of aided self-help housing “. . . aided self-help made sense not only on grounds of financial expediency, but also as an element of indigenous economic and cultural development” [9]. These views are also shared by [13], as he submits that informal settlements, which exclusively practice self-help housing, are responsive to the socio-economic conditions of the urban poor and are a viable solution to housing challenges in third world countries. As housing challenges continues to increase in developing countries, advocates and critics of pro-poor housing policies and literature on housing research, call for a re-evaluation and return of aided or assisted self-help housing that was popular in the 1970s⁵. In an attempt to develop pro-poor housing initiatives, the Botswana government established SiHA for the implementation of low-income housing projects around the country. Fig. (2) shows pictures of some of the houses developed under the SHHA Loan Improvement (see Fig. 2a) and the Turnkey Loan (see Fig. 2b) schemes. In studying housing in Botswana, it is important to briefly discuss the two organizations that were established by the government to provide housing to the citizens: the Botswana Housing Corporations (BHC) in 1970, and the Self-Help Housing Agency (SHHA) in 1973 [14]. BHC is a parastatal whose mission is to provide housing to both government employees and private individuals for rental or purchase [15]. SHHA is a housing scheme whose main objective is to provide decent shelter to rural villages and people in the low and middle income [14]. To qualify for SHHA, applicants’ monthly income should be between P1 000.00 (approx. $100) and P3 033.00 (approx. $300) [14]. The SHHA scheme is now managed under SiHA by BHC. There are two low-income housing schemes under SiHA as outlined by the Department of Housing: Loan Improvement and Turnkey Loan schemes [14].

• SHHA Loan Improvement is meant to finish, renovate or extend the existing structure. The maximum is P45, 000 ($4,500) with repayment period of 20 years at 0% interest, or 10% interest for defaulters.
• Turn Key Loan is P60, 000 ($6,000), also with the same repayment conditions as above. In this scheme, houses are built by professional builders engaged by BHC on behalf of SiHA.

At policy level, the SHHA programmes have been successful, with more that 60% of the population having access to housing [15]. Despite its successes, there are critics that believe that the schemes are heavily subsidized with poor cost-recovery performance [15].

1.2. Flexible Housing

In many traditional societies in the past the process of designing and building of houses occurred simultaneously [16]. There was no separation of roles between the dwellers and the local builders in the design and building process. This is not to suggest that these societies did not design, but it was never a formal activity [17]. Peter Kellett [18] observes that occupation and construction took place simultaneously and the houses were usually in the process of dynamic change. Bryan Lawson [19] maintains that there is still a lot to learn from the traditional housing processes which are a lot cheaper and easier to build, offering more simpler and reliable solutions. Following this argument, one can consider the recent implementation of ‘architect designed’ and ‘contractor-led’ housing process by SiHA to be inappropriate for the economic and traditional practices commonly used in self-help housing. While we cannot deny the economic and social benefits of adopting industrial materials and building methods, it is more important to build houses that reflect Tswana’s cultural identity and character. Fig. (3) is a good example of how pre-industrial traditional patterns (Fig. 3a) can inform organization of forms and spaces in contemporary houses (Fig. 3b).

Flexible design methods were developed as an alternative approach to traditional design methods and also to accommodate the needs of designers [20]. Flexible and adaptable housing are at times used interchangeably, but they have a different meaning [20]. Steven Groak [21], defines flexibility as a design process capable of different physical arrangements and adaptability as a building that can adapt to different social uses. The most appropriate definition of what is flexible housing, is the one given by Till and Schneider [20] that “. . . is housing that can adjust to changing needs and patterns, both social and technological. These changing needs may be personal (say an expanding family), practical (i.e. the onset of old age) or technological (i.e. the updating of old services). The changing patterns might be demographic (say the rise of single person household), economic (i.e. the rise of the rental market), or environmental (i.e. the need to update housing to respond to climate change)”.

Architecture critics understandably oppose the idea of a logical or systematic design approach on the grounds of aesthetics and artistic freedom (For further discussions on these see for example Shove [22], and also Rapoport [23]). It is important to note that what is being developed here is not a house design but a flexible design framework that demonstrate a design process that local builders and users can use to design and build their houses effectively.

2.1. Design Strategy

During my fieldwork research in Mochudi (by the first author), I observed many houses that were being modified; either being extended or refurbished. This was mainly due to a wide range of reasons such as a change in functional needs, aspirations, increase in family growth or availability of resources to build a better house. Unfortunately, these changes are mostly uncoordinated and unplanned. This often compromises any future developments leading to spaces of poor architectural quality. In addition, the houses deteriorate in value over-time, which negates the incremental investments that people make in an attempt to improve the quality of their houses [20]. This approach also lead to costly refurbishment and an increasing number of dilapidated buildings as observed by Kendall and Teicher [29], in their study of the residential construction industry in the UK.

According to the UN’s Manual on Self-Help housing [30], the houses that are built under the SHHA schemes are referred to as “core-housing”. This is mainly because the government’s intentions to fund these “core-houses”, is that the houses must be integrated to future permanent housing to be self-financed by the owners [30]. However, the integration of these houses into future housing is a challenge as they are not designed to accommodate changes at a minimum effort and costs. The other major challenges is the of lack of finance and technical design skills to effectively manage these changes.

In order to avoid design costs of designing for each and every SHHA applicants’ individual house, the applicants have to choose from three plans that are ‘professionally decided, professionally designed ’. The standardized templates are also ‘professionally built ’. The plans are approximately 40m² (see Figs. 7, 8), which is quite small considering the number of people per household in low-income communities. According to the 2011 population census, almost two-third of the housing units are 1-2 small rooms [3]. Over time, owners’ social needs and cultural values inevitably changes and they need to add or modify the existing house. Brand [31] stress the importance of a good design strategy that can easily accommodate future changes, that, “. . . a strategy is designed to encompass unforeseeable changing conditions. A good strategy ensures that, no matter what happens, you always have maneuvering room [31]”.

The use of a uniform and standardized architect designed plan, built by contractors using high standard materials not locally available, increases the cost of houses significantly. The economic situation and cultural values of people in Mochudi varies and a standardized approach does not reflect such important characteristics. In his critique of standardized housing approach, Kendall [32] states that some household pay more for what they do not need while others have to settle for less than what they can afford. He proposes an open building design and construction strategy to address the challenges of income and household diversity [32].

2.2. Construction Strategy

As already noted, Botswana Housing Corporation (BHC) is appointed as project managers for the SHHA schemes, which were previously managed by the local councils and the owners. In order to deliver these schemes effectively, BHC adopted a contractor-led construction approach to meet its high building standard requirements. Under the current approach, the contractor is responsible of procuring materials, transporting materials to site, storage of materials on site and the actual building of the houses. Arguably, the quality of the built houses has improved compared to the previous scheme under the local councils, but at a significant cost to the government. Whether this approach has improved the social impact and process of housing will require further research.

Fig. (9) is examples of a self-funded and incremental self-help housing process; where people continue to improve their houses while occupying them. Eventual the quality of the house reaches a satisfactory level that meets the dweller’s needs. These self-initiated efforts by people can be supported both financially and technically for them to be effective. One way of providing support is developing a flexible design framework proposed in this study. The design framework assists the owners and local builders to develop design skills. Flexible design principles are based on “. . . industrial production, emerging technologies, improved logistics, and changing social values. . . [29].”

Traditionally, people in self-help communities built their houses with locally available materials. They built the houses with the help from local builders, family and at times members of the community would also help. Mainly in urban areas, it is common practice for owners to employ a paid builder to design and build their houses. However, from the case study research in Mochudi, more than 80 % of people contributed labour in building their houses alongside a paid local builder. This is mainly because a majority of people in low-income communities are unemployed or hold irregular jobs to be able to afford a paid builder. Less than 20 % of the houses were built entirely by a paid builder.

A detailed study of existing construction methods and available materials was carried out in the previous field-work in Mochudi. Table 3 is a summary of materials used for the houses that were studied in Mochudi. More than 70 % of the roofs are corrugated galvanised metal, 14 % are concrete tiles and the remaining 6 % built of thatch. Corrugated galvanised metal is commonly used because it is robust, cheap and easy to use for self-help housing projects. 28 % of the walls are built of mud bricks or blocks, and over 68 % are built of concrete bricks or blocks. These bricks are easy to make in people’s back-yard. The remaining 4 % of walls built of corrugated galvanised metal are mainly shacks or temporary houses. Reinforced concrete is commonly used in housing projects as it readily available from local building material suppliers. However, it very expensive and many local builders compromise on the structural stability of concrete trying to reduce the costs. About 78 % of the floors are cement, followed 19 % of mud and dung, with the remaining 3 % being a mixture of different materials such as bricks and stones.

Unfortunately, the quality of housing is still defined in terms of the use of industrial materials which does not reflect the identity of individuals or allow them to express their cultural values. One of the benefits of engaging users is that it leads to less expensive buildings as it reduces costly changes after construction [34, 35]. While it is clear that user participation is necessary and was practised in traditional architecture, the process has been lost in modern housing design.

This current work stresses the importance of a simplified and flexible design process, based on a modular system, as an alternative strategy to efficiently deliver the SHHA schemes. This systematic approach puts the user as the most important factor in housing and offers the possibilities for change in response to lifestyle changes and family growth [36]. The rigidity of the use of industrial materials, which reduces a house to a ‘product’. The 2011 Population and Housing Analytical Report observes the changes in the use of industrial materials and that “. . . this improvement is reflected in the decrease in the proportion of housing units classified as traditional type from 64 % in 1991 to 22 % in 2001 and 13 % in 2011 [3].”

3.1. Design Process

The modular structural systems or support system theories and concepts, which is basically a system of primary and secondary structures, were used successfully by John Habraken [37-39] and Herman Hertzberger [35, 40] in housing projects. The modular structural system allows individuals to create their own spaces within a defined structure, which offered a simplified approach to change both the physical and non-physical aspect of housing. Charles Correa [41, 42] also developed a modular design system based on social and cultural patterns, as well as existing income profiles and existing plot sizes in India. This modular structural system reflects criticism offered by Alexander [43-45], Rapoport [46, 47], Venturi [48] and other prominent architecture critics. They rejected the notion of conventional design processes as being reductive and lacking complexities of real life. It was also a response to opposition of systematic design approach on the grounds of aesthetic and artistic freedom [36].

To demonstrate how a flexible design strategy is made possible in housing, an open building conceptual approach is adapted and applied in one of the existing SHHA plans in the following design explorations. Following on Habraken’s [37, 38] approach, An existing SHHA house plan is first divided into its subsystems as illustrated in Fig. (10).

Secondly, the SHHA plan is superimposed into a 15/30 band grid developed based on commonly used structural materials of 15 cm for interior walls and 30 cm for exterior structural walls in Botswana’s construction industry (see Fig. 11).

Using the existing SHHA house types, we have proposed a variety of plans that can be achieved by adopting a simplified flexible design framework. There are many variations that can be achieved through this process and this was only a illustration of the open building concept. The design explorations are developed based on affodability and spatial needs of people living in self-help communities. This is an effective design approach that allows changes to be made with minimum effort and costs.

3.2. Construction Process

The most important aspect of the open building concept is that a house is divided into subsystems that can be constructed independent of each other. There is no room in this paper to go into details of how to develop technologies and materials suitable for this construction process illustrated in Table 4. However, this approach has been researched and applied in practice by John Habraken [37, 38] and Herman Hertzberger [35] amongst others. A further study is needed to develop technical details that can make this approach possible in Botswana’s economic and social context.

This study proposes a construction process that places key decision making responsibilities in the hands of the dweller as developed by John Turner⁷ [5]. It is an attempt to simplify the design and construction processes with tools that are more predictable, controllable and flexible⁸. The design system is based on a defined set of rules that offer possibilities for growth and change with time. It is important to note that even though materials and building technology are standardized for efficiency, design can still be varied to reflect the various lifestyles and economic conditions of each owner with minimal effort and cost [37, 44]. The major benefit of a flexible design framework is to avoid repetitive and monotonous housing as inhabitants play active role is the design and construction of their houses; a fundamental housing need [5]. The flexible construction process developed here is illustrated in Table 4 in the last row.

Table 4.