Quality: 2 - Ciudad

Social Housing in Supportive Environments (SHSE)

0

Social Housing in Supportive Environments (SHSE)

Mismatches Functional adequacy Vulnerable groups
Policies and regulations Local policies
Urban Design Urban fabrics Inclusion
Promotion and production Transformation and adaptation

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2014:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Belgrade
Country/Region: Belgrade, Republic of Serbia

Description

As a result of the 1990s wars, Serbia has the highest number of refugees and internally displaced people in Europe. The original government policy was to house the most vulnerable displaced people in collective centres. These provided shelter but conditions were frequently appalling with inadequate sanitation, water supply and little privacy. The centres were also in the process of closure. SHSE has played a significant role in providing new permanent housing for people enabling the collective centres to be closed. It offers quality housing, individually tailored support services from local social care institutions and connects people to a local “host family” who provide additional support to help people re-integrate into society. The project has been extended to other vulnerable groups including homeless people, vulnerable people and Roma.

 

Project Description

What are its aims and objectives?

The SHSE programme has been in place since 2003. The aim of the project is to improve the housing conditions and social inclusion of the most vulnerable groups in Serbia. The programme was initiated to provide permanent decent housing so that the most vulnerable forced migrants could be rehoused from Government collective centres built as emergency shelters to house people who had been displaced during the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s.

Government policy was to close the shelters but because of the lack of institutional mechanisms and insufficient capacity of social housing, they remained open long after planned closure dates. The centres provided extremely poor quality housing, with poor sanitation, overcrowding and insanitary water supply and, most important, produced further social exclusion of their residents. Whilst some still remain open today, the work of SHSE helped house many people and hastened the closure of many collective centres.

The project has built 1,014 homes so far, housing 2,643 of the most vulnerable and socially excluded people. It also provides individually tailored support to enable people to integrate back into society and lead independent lives. The individual needs of the tenants include finding work, acquiring health care and social care services, psychological support and relationship building within the local community. These are provided through the host families system and social work centres, which jointly provide a supportive environment.

Host families are families who face housing exclusion but have sufficient social capital and personal skills to enable them to act as good neighbours, helping new families find their feet and gradually become self-reliant. Host families live in an apartment in the same way as the other families requiring support.

Social work centres manage the buildings, educate, monitor and support the host families and also provide direct, professional services to beneficiaries.

Housing Center is an organisation which has, together with other partners, developed and implemented the project. It organises training workshops for beneficiaries of the project and organisations and institutions at local and national levels, carries out research on housing for vulnerable groups and works with the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy and Commissariat for Refugees to develop guidance on social housing in supportive environments in other regions.

Housing Center shares its learning externally and currently it is a member of FEANTSA (the European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless).

What context does it operate in?

Serbia has a population of more than 10 million and has the highest number of refugees and internally displaced people in Europe. The situation is a legacy of the wars of the 1990s. Twenty years after the wars ended, the country still hosts 45,000 people with refugee status and has 205,000 internally displaced people.

Refugees and internally displaced people are the poorest and among most deprived in Serbia. Their unemployment rate is 33 per cent, far higher than the general population. Incomes are low; 29 per cent have incomes below 48 Euros a month. Sixty-one per cent do not have a permanent home. Many of them are accommodated in the collective centres or inadequate private accommodation.

Serbia has one of the largest Roma communities in Europe, with a population estimated to be around 500,000. Roma people are among the most vulnerable communities in Europe, with a long history of persecution and discrimination. The Roma communities are amongst the most deprived and socially excluded groups in Serbia. Although Serbia adopted a law on Social Housing in 2009, it does not have a functioning social housing system. Very few of the requirements of the Social Housing Law have been implemented. The private housing market has not been able to serve the most vulnerable people, due to high rental prices and rising demand. Estimates indicate that there is a shortfall of 100,000 homes in Serbia; this increases both the demand and the market price for homes that are available. Housing is not seen as a political objective and it has neither a system of affordable or social housing nor a housing policy in place.

What are its key features?

The SHSE project provides sustainable housing solution to the most vulnerable people. It helps them develop the skills and competences required for a self-reliant and independent life.

The role of the SHSE service is not only providing housing but helping residents become more included in society.  The project has two main components: The construction and provision of social housing units and creating a supportive environment, which further facilitates social inclusion.The social housing built by the project is specifically designed to help encourage integration and communication between residents. The buildings have a mixture of different sized apartments allowing a diverse mix of households. Special attention is given to common areas – common living rooms, laundries and outdoor spaces. The project recognises that these are the areas where social contact and communication between residents take place.  Setting up of the supportive environment component includes:

  • Selection and training of the host families, who help families adjust to a normal life and provide assistance for networking and building relationships with others.
  • Training of the social work centres, which continue to support and monitor the progress of the tenants after the project is over.

How is it funded?

The first SHSE projects were financed by Swiss Development and Cooperation. Since 2003, 20 million Euros have been invested in the capital costs of building. Ninety per cent of this has been provided by international donors, including UNHCR, the European Union and the German government. The other 10 per cent was raised locally through local government and local donors. Projects were also included in the National Investment Plan of the Government in 2009.

Land and infrastructure connections are provided by local government as their contribution to the project. Local government also takes responsibility for building maintenance and providing support services for residents through local social care centres, which it funds. In return, the ownership of the buildings is transferred to the local authority.

What impact has it had?

The project has successfully helped provide good quality housing and support in social inclusion to over 2,500 people. Evaluation work carried out shows that resident satisfaction levels are extremely high.

The project has enabled numerous collective centres to close. Over 2,000 of SHSE’s residents were rehoused from collective centres.

The project has influenced national policy. It was influential in the current national housing strategy, which recommends the SHSE approach be used for internally displaced people.The project was also used by the government as a model in developing a strategy for decentralising social welfare service.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • The key innovation of the project is to combine housing provision with social welfare support through Centres of Social work. Helping groups to leave the collective centres and start an independent life integrated with other parts of society.
  • Introduction of the Host Family to provide peer support. This support is available close to where people live and the hosts have the same ethnic background, language and family situation.

 

What is the environmental impact?

The SHSE buildings are thermally insulated and energy efficient. New regulations on energy efficiency in Serbia promote the thermal performance of housing. Compared to the collective centres and also to the housing generally in Serbia, the new buildings are far more efficient. Most of the new buildings have more efficient energy and water usage. There is a positive environmental impact, as the old collective centre buildings were badly insulated, used old schools, gymnasiums, agriculture warehouses and factory buildings. The buildings were neither designed nor insulated for human use. The closure of these centres has had a positive impact on the environment and the people living in them.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

The project relies significantly on international donors to provide the capital costs of buildings.

This model will be used in the immediate future.

There is a strong interest amongst donors to assist with finalising the refugee housing situation in Southern Europe through the Regional Housing Programme and so the prospects for future funding are good. In the future the project hopes that the financial stability of the country will settle to the extent that it will be possible to borrow capital from lenders, with additional funding provided through local government.

 

What is the social impact?

The project facilitates a system of mutual support and leads to greater community cooperation. The beneficiaries, host families and local community take responsibility for arranging a number of support measures together. Transferrable skills also identified from within the community are shared. In the many municipalities psycho-sociological support, learning assistance, computer training or employment assistance are provided in common living rooms provided within the buildings. The project enables people facing housing and social exclusion to acquire various forms of support (obtain citizenship, access health and social care services, increase their employability) facilitating their social integration. The approach adopted by the project contributes to improved health and safety, since special attention is given to architectural design, materials used in construction and construction standards.

 

Barriers

  • Political instability, frequent shifts in power and conflict between political parties and struggle over land allocation has been a major challenge, which has affected the level of government support the project has received.
  • After the collapse of the socialist political system and mass privatisation of social housing, the market was expected to provide housing to the most vulnerable. This has not happened and the policies and strategies have been delayed. This gap has led to the adoption of illegal self-help strategies.
  • Many project beneficiaries have been living in government and donor-supported collective centres for many years, in some case 15 years.
  • While Centres for Social Work and local self-government are enthusiastically working in the creation of an inclusive society, the other tiers of the political system and government are still struggling to wholeheartedly adopt the changes.
  • Housing construction is expensive and financial allocation is a challenge. The administrative processes for the allocation of land and construction of building are time consuming.

 

Lessons Learned

  • Housing with integrated social support is important. Housing alone is not enough and continual, long term and individually tailored support is crucial because of the multiple vulnerability people face. SHSE learned that integrated and targeted support is the most important part of social housing.
  • The importance of constructing the buildings in central locations and integrating families from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
  • National legislation on Social Welfare provides a general framework, while a number of decisions are taken at the municipal levels. At this level diverse needs of the families are recognised.
  • More investments are required at the beginning, especially as the host families require support and beneficiaries develop their knowledge and skills. Once, beneficiaries gain more independence, the support required is only occasional.

 

Evaluation

In 2005, evaluation was carried out by SDC. In 2010, UNHCR carried out some evaluation. In 2009, the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy conducted some evaluation. All the evaluations endorsed the impact of the SHSE programme.

 

Transfer

The project has scaled up and is operating in 42 municipalities. The local governments would like to use the approach to address the needs of low income populations, not just refugees. The project learning has been used in Armenia and Georgia with support from SDC.

At a national level, the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy has supported the exchange visits and training of staff in other municipalities. It has supported the networks of Centres for Social Work, the final beneficiaries and the host families so that they learn from each other.

With the support from Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), the positive experience has been shared with organisations in South Caucasus, Armenia and Georgia. Study visits have also taken place to Georgia and Armenia.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Social Inclusion and Improvement of Living Conditions for Roma

0

Social Inclusion and Improvement of Living Conditions for Roma

Mismatches Segregation Cultural suitability Diversity
Policies and regulations National policies
Urban Design Liveability Equity

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2014:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Novi Sad City
Country/Region: Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia

Description

The Roma are among the most vulnerable communities in Europe with a long history of persecution and discrimination perpetrated against them. Most live in segregated areas in poor quality and unhealthy housing. The project seeks to improve housing conditions and better integrate Roma people within wider society, including lobbying for equal access to public services. It has upgraded houses, improved sanitation, helped to improve school attendance, learning and helped people into work. The project’s ‘Dweller-driven Upgrading of Roma Settlements Model’ is now being successfully scaled up across Serbia.

 

Project Description

What are its aims and objectives?

The project aims to provide better living conditions for Roma People and help the Roma community better integrate with society. It aims to do this by:

  • Helping Roma people to improve and upgrade their homes and sanitation system.
  • Help more Roma children into mainstream education.
  • Improve employment rates amongst Roma people enabling them to earn a good level of income.
  • Advocating on behalf of Roma people to help them get equal access to public services.

During 2008-2012, the project successfully developed, tested and implemented a programme of improving the housing and living conditions of 3000 Roma living in 13 settlements. In addition, training support was provided to 630 Roma children. The current phase of this project aims to consolidate, scale up and institutionalise the approaches developed so far.

What context does it operate in?

Serbia has one of the largest Roma populations in Europe, estimated to be around 500,000. The government lacks the capacity and resources to develop Roma settlements. The Roma community is rarely involved in decisions about their settlements and housing. Roma people are among the most vulnerable communities in Europe, with a long history of persecution and discrimination. The Roma communities are also amongst the most deprived and socially excluded in Europe. In Serbia about 60 per cent of the Roma population is considered very poor, an estimated 60 per cent live below the poverty line of $2 per person a day. Twenty-six per cent of Roma children are regularly confronted with malnutrition, while only 46 per cent of them have a proper meal every day. Only 11 per cent of Roma settlements are considered developed, while most settlements are considered informal or illegal. Most Roma live in substandard houses without access to sanitation and with limited access to public infrastructure. Forty-five per cent of Roma settlements are located on land that is unsafe, risky and considered illegal. As compared to the general population, Roma people have a lower rate of joining and/or completing school education or getting employment.

What are its key features?

The project addresses the complex issues the Roma community face in a holistic way through partnerships between the Roma community, state institutions and municipalities. This compares to other previous approaches that have concentrated largely on providing housing. The project assists people in making decisions about upgrading their settlements through a ‘dweller driven approach’. The project places a high priority on owner occupation. This helps create an incentive for occupiers to improve and upgrade their own homes.  Labour and recycled materials are contributed by the families and the project invests on average Euro 2,150 per house for new materials. In addition, the project has raised money to pay for upgrading of sanitation and infrastructure in Roma settlements.  The project also helps Roma families introduce their children to mainstream schools. The project has provided mentoring support to 300 Roma pupils, through supporting the work of 14 teaching assistants.  Roma children in other schools have been granted vouchers to purchase necessary school equipment and school uniforms.  The project helps people seek new employment and helps develop their skills.  The service is provided in partnership with the National Employment Service.  This service has been used by 80 people.  In addition, 1,050 Roma returnees to Serbia have used the services of the legal and migration counselling centre.

How is it funded?

The project is largely funded by the donations from the Swiss Church Aid (HEKS-EPER) and Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). Between 2008 and 2012, EHO and its partners invested approximately Euro 2.4 million in improving the living conditions of Roma in settlements out of which, Euro 1.21 million came from the SDC, HEKS and Swiss Federal Office for Migrations, while Euro 0.76 million was invested by Norwegian Church Aid and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway. Local municipalities invested Euro 0.38 million, while Euro 0.76 million was invested as in-kind contribution by Roma families themselves.  Advocacy and lobbying with the municipalities have resulted in in-kind contribution and co-funding of Euro 82,870 and another Euro 95,000 is budgeted for 2014. While a number of national government departments are supporting the project and promoting this as a best practice in the Serbia, thus contributing in kind.

What impact has it had?

The project has had a significant impact on Roma population. During the period 2008-12, the project improved the living conditions of 3000 Roma, living in 13 settlements. This project has successfully tested the ‘dweller-driven upgrading’ approach, which was validated by an independent evaluation completed in 2011. During this period, educational support was provided to 630 children, on the job training was provided to 240 Roma and 186 people received legal advice and counselling services.  The 2013-15 phase of the project is currently scaling-up the approach in nine municipalities, with an estimated 19,000 Roma benefiting. The housing conditions of 540 people have already been improved. They have better access to water, sanitation and electricity.  The mentoring service in schools has continued and provided support to 300 Roma pupils, which has significantly increased attendance rates. Seven hundred pupils have received vouchers to purchase school items.  One thousand and fifty Roma have received legal and migration counselling services to assist them with resettlement. Eighty people have benefited from the services to access employment or start to earn an income. The project offers a model to municipalities on how to upgrade Roma settlements and to promote their inclusion in the society.

 

Why is it innovative?

The partnership between the municipalities and the Roma communities with a common goal is perhaps the most innovative element of this project. As compared to a project that just delivers physical housing run by the government or an NGO, this project combines the relative strengths of the institutions involved. It also places a high priority on beneficiary ownership and improves their existing structure and fully utilises their skills and knowledge.  It does not just focus on housing needs but also strengthens the economy of the Roma population and supports the education of their children.  This contributes to their overall wellbeing.

 

What is the environmental impact?

The manual produced by the project encourages the use of recycled bricks, roof tiles and timber.

The project significantly improves the water and sanitation systems, creating a healthier water supply for people and reducing the pollution of water courses. There are a number of positive impacts on the local environment, especially as the Roma settlements are upgraded.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

The project is funded by grants from international donors and church-based organisations. The project has used the funds to build capacity and lobby for more resources from the government. There is evidence that in future the project will continue to receive government funds, local funds and community contributions.

The project has been successful in helping the Roma community access employment and acquires new skills. The project also uses the labour of the Roma and assists in the education of Roma children. This has resulted in pupils staying at school and improving education levels.

 

What is the social impact?

The project helps support the integration of Roma people into society. It also facilitates the mutual support and cooperation among Roma community.  The project helps develop people with courses, business plan training and basic equipment, which help them to seek employment. However, employment levels remain low, partly as a result of the poor labour market in the country. The project also provides basic building skills training through a manual and on the job training.  The project also inspired significantly increased school attendance amongst Roma children. The project has significantly improved housing and access to basic services, such as water and sanitation. Both settlements and housing have improved, resulting in health improvement. Health and safety improvements are not generally measured through the project monitoring.   The project has succeeded to a large degree by enhancing employment and self-employment opportunities. It has achieved this by advising Roma returnees, host communities and local authorities and institutions on matters relating to Roma rights, migration issues, legal subjectivity and personal documentation, etc. It has also supported communities in building sanitation facilities and upgrading their housing.

 

Barriers

The project has identified four challenges and measures were put in place to overcome those:

  • Beneficiary selection was a challenge at the inception of the project. It is now done with local government representatives and shared with the community. For added participation, Roma Settlement Development Boards are established by the municipality.
  • Active cooperation of the municipality was a challenge at the beginning. Now, local government is involved in all aspects of the project to avoid the risk of lack of cooperation and to enhance the sustainability. Similarly at the inception, the Roma community was also not sure of the benefits of the project.
  • The evaluation carried out in 2011 also identified the challenges of finding employment for the Roma community. Skills, training and ‘know how’ is not enough to put them on the employment ladder.

 

Lessons Learned

The project brings together the strengths of various partners: the donors, municipalities, government departments and the Roma community itself. It involves the Roma community, both in making choices and involvement in planning and designing and works with clearly defined and systematic procedures. It works with a group, who have been treated as the passive beneficiaries in the past. The project has promoted an approach through which owners take the lead on identifying and working on the need to upgrade housing and settlements. This guarantees ownership of the work and its sustainability. Additional support to the participants, in terms of residence registration, schooling, finding employment and income are considered as integral parts of the upgrading process.

 

Evaluation

Since 2013 the project has undertaken systematic monitoring and evaluation based on the baselines and indicators. An external evaluation was carried out in 2011 and another evaluation is planned for autumn 2015. Monitoring is also carried out of the activities and expenditure. The project submission also includes an independent auditor’s report for the period ending 2013.

 

Transfer

The project continued from 2008 to date. It carried out an evaluation in 2011 and the current phase finishes in 2015. The trust in the approach of stakeholders, especially the donors, municipality, the government and the Roma has increased with time. The current phase of the project is the scaling up and mainstreaming phase. The EHO is making every effort to scale-up the project and help others to learn from this project. They are also making efforts to share the learning across other countries, where the Roma population is facing similar challenges.

The project has been transferred to a number of municipal corporations within the Vojvodina region.

Elements of the project have been transferred around Serbia. A separate project was established in Belgrade and central Serbia, and a decentralised project has been established in South Serbia. The project has been shared internationally and visited by a number of groups. EHO’s settlement upgrading programme was included in UN-Habitat’s Handbook of sustainable housing practices in 2012. In 2011, it was also presented at the First Housing Forum, in Budapest, Hungary. Its work has also been highlighted in the Organisation of Security and Cooperation (OSCE) in Europe’s report on housing legalisation.

Elements of the project have been incorporated by Kosovo-based NGO Voice of Roma.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Rural Habitat Improvements

0

Rural Habitat Improvements

Mismatches Cultural suitability New family structures
Urban Design Urban fabrics Liveability
Promotion and production Self-promotion Progressive housing

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2014:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: South America
Country/Region: El Salvador, San Salvador

Description

A project led by FUNDASAL (the Salvadoran Foundation for Development and Low-cost Housing) to improve health and housing standards in the deprived rural settlements of canton El Pinalito in county Santa Ana, where the risk from disasters caused by natural phenomena such as earthquakes is high and services and infrastructure are poor. Supported by a wide partnership of organisations, the project has helped to significantly reduce the incidence of Chagas disease and other illnesses related to the poor condition of the habitat and has improved the durability of housing. Chagas disease is a tropical parasitic disease spread by insects that live in cracks and gaps found in poor quality housing, it is endemic to South and Central America. The objective of FUNDASAL and partners is to achieve a transferable model of intervention which will not require external funding, so the project embeds knowledge within the local communities and enables the use of locally sourced building materials. The inclusion and training of local households and support groups is integral to this project.

 

Project Description

What are its aims and objectives?

The project aims to contribute to the establishment of a replicable intervention model for the control of Chagas disease and reduced incidence of other illnesses, with the support of state institutions. It does so by tackling the physical and social vulnerabilities in canton El Pinalito in county Santa Ana, where the incidence of Chagas disease is highest.

What context does it operate in?

Many houses in El Salvador are self-built and not strong enough to withstand hazards or extreme natural phenomena such as earthquakes. Poor housing conditions and lack of support services enable the proliferation of insects that transmit Chagas, malaria, dengue, respiratory and gastrointestinal conditions and many other diseases.

Much of the local housing is built with earth and cracks in the structures harbour insects (such as the “beaked bug” that transmits Chagas disease). Around a quarter of people who contract Chagas disease develop cardiac problems which lead to heart failure. Other bugs are carried by animals that are allowed to sleep indoors.

Many households in the area do not have security of tenure due to legal issues regarding entitlement and ownership which cause complications regarding their ability to address problems with their homes.The local economy is heavily reliant on agriculture, so adjustments had to be made to the project’s implementation and engagement activities to accommodate the farming calendar, for example, when local people have to focus on crop harvesting.

Religious ceremonies are also highly important to local people, with similar adjustments being necessary to account for this.

What are its key features?

The principal objective of the project is to prevent diseases such as Chagas by tackling the underlying physical causes, especially poor housing, alongside awareness raising, education and social action (where other approaches have been mainly medical or educational only). Structural improvements were based on ideas first tested by the PUCP (Pontifical Catholic University of Peru) and then locally adapted through research in collaboration with the University of El Salvador and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). The project also encourages sustainability and reduced costs through the use of local materials.

A participatory approach was used in establishing the project, to inform and empower the communities involved, regardless of gender or age. Planning was carried out with the input of local families, ADESCOs (community development organisations) and local training institutions.

The programme provides training across the breadth of the community being supported, through a variety of mechanisms. These include:

  • Training for families.
  • Training for young people via schools.
  • Support for community development organisations to improve self-management skills.
  • Training for health committees and inter-communal organisations.
  • Practical and theoretical training in technical construction for fieldwork staff and families on the improvement and construction of housing and sanitation.

Practical interventions include:

  • Physical intervention on housing and surroundings, for example, to cracked clay walls and floors, at the same time reinforcing walls to withstand earthquakes.
  • Legal support regarding the human right to decent housing. Many of the project participants were settlers in the area but the legal structure of ownership entailed the land to others. FUNDASAL provided advice and explored a variety of legal mechanisms (such as bailment and inheritance law) to expand the number of families reached.

The intervention programme is supported by several key partners:

  • The Ministry of Health, which supported the project by measuring the impact of changes to housing, contributing to the provision of training, monitoring the presence of disease-carrying insects and undertaking other measures of disease prevention in the target community, such as fumigation.
  • The Ministry of Education, which made facilities available and integrated health issues into the curriculum, involving teachers and improving the physical condition of local schools.
  • The Municipality of Santa Ana, which provided administrative support and contributed staff and other resources
  • The Community Investment Committee of TELUS International El Salvador (TELUS is one of the largest telecommunications companies in Canada), which supported youth activities and awareness raising.
  • Four community development associations (ADESCOs), which are legally recognised community-led groups committed to local improvement, training and development. These were ADESCOLME, ADESCOMAR, ADESCOES and ADESCO LA ESPERANZA.

How is it funded?

The project received financial support from a number of different organisations. These were:

  • FUNDASAL (the Salvadoran Foundation for Development and Low-cost Housing).
  • Manos Unidas (a Spanish NGO with a focus on reducing the effects of poverty through interventions in agriculture, health, education, social development and the advancement of women), which acted as the co-ordinator for the project and facilitated access to funding from five Spanish local or regional authorities. These were the Government of Cantabria; the City and Provincial Councils of Guadalajara; the Provincial Council of Valencia and the City Council of Pamplona.
  • MISEREOR (the German Catholic Bishops’ Organisation for Development Cooperation, which supports the principle of help towards self-help).
  • Two national awards (in the form of financial contributions) given by the Gloria de Kriete Foundation (based in El Salvador, which provides support to organisations committed to the well-being and improvement of Salvadorian families).
  • TELUS International El Salvador (TELUS is one of the largest telecommunications companies in Canada).

The programme was carried out over two main phases and four interphases. The total cost was US$1,464,851.21. Donor contributions paid for staff, building works, transportation, training, equipment and materials and various facilities. Communities contributed labour and local authorities provided new and existing staff to collaborate with the programme.

The project also benefited from a number of non-financial donations such as training and support from a range of partners.

What impact has it had?

The project has benefited over 300 impoverished and excluded families in ten rural settlements with no access to adequate housing or public or private programmes. It has helped to strengthen community cohesion; rather than acting individually, people now have learned to address problems together. The training provided has helped to embed improved health behaviour and increase the quality of housing, as well as putting in place institutional support from permanent institutions like the health service.

Local communities have been empowered to improve their own situation through:

  • Greater awareness and knowledge about various diseases and what causes them, leading to changes in behaviour. Two major hygiene surveys involving hundreds of families have shown a huge increase in awareness of Chagas disease and its causes and in hygiene behaviour and a reduction in presence of the bug.
  • Training in self-applied improvements to homes and services (sanitation, kitchen) which benefits their health and safety and raises living standards.
  • Increased community cohesion and joint problem-solving.
  • Establishment of an umbrella organisation which now represents and advocates for the communities on a wider scale.
  • A strengthened role for women, both in project implementation and taking a lead.

Neighbouring communities have observed and learned from the Pinalito experience and started to copy some of the techniques, sometimes assisted by Pinalito residents. The health promoter, recruited by the Ministry of Health, is also helping to transfer the experience to neighbouring communities. At least two communities have come to visit to learn from the project.

A National Network against Chagas disease has been formed, which aims to generate greater awareness and action. The initiative is also used as a model by the University of El Salvador to influence other municipalities.

The project was awarded the “Helping those who help” prize by the Gloria de Kriete Foundation in 2011 and 2012. FUNDASAL was also asked to present the project experience at three events: the First National Chagas Conference in El Salvador, the Manos Unidas Forum in Cadiz, Spain and the Terra 2012 Conference in Lima, Peru. Replica projects have been formulated for two areas of the country and presented to the Inter-American Development Bank and the Vice Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.

The Research Centre of the University of El Salvador has shared knowledge from the project with other municipalities where there is a high rate of Chagas disease. As a result, the town of Tacachico has prepared a Chagas project. In addition, the community of Matapalos in Honduras has been trained and is currently implementing the intervention model.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • The principal innovation by this project, in the context of El Salvador, is in preventing diseases such as Chagas by tackling underlying physical causes, especially poor housing alongside awareness raising, education and social action, where other approaches have been mainly medical or educational only. Structural improvements were based on ideas first tested by the PUCP in Peru, then locally adapted through research in collaboration with a university of El Salvador.
  • The use of mainly local materials in strengthening and improving houses.
  • A joined-up approach between communities, the NGOs, schools and government agencies of health and education.
  • Education across all groups in society, regardless of gender or age.
  • Alternative ways of creating sufficient tenure security to avoid evictions and enable home improvements.

 

What is the environmental impact?

The project mainly uses local materials including earth, wood, bamboo and thatch. This keeps the transport component – and related energy need – down. The building materials required are simple and predominantly recyclable. The project also recommends that bamboo is replanted to encourage sustainability.

The compost toilets introduced are designed to save water and produce a source of fertiliser with secondary benefits. The stoves introduced reduce smoke in kitchens – a health benefit – and are more fuel-efficient than the stoves previously used. The project has also improved the means of waste disposal and protection of water resources such as springs.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

The project set out to define and prove a replicable model of tackling Chagas and other diseases. If it succeeds in doing so, no future funding will be needed for similar projects by FUNDASAL, though it may still want to raise funds to promote replication.

The project was not primarily designed to generate local incomes. However, people’s assets in housing and services and therefore their wealth, have definitely increased. The emphasis on using local materials also keeps transport costs down, which saves money.The costs of home improvements are kept low by using mainly local materials and skills. By empowering residents in this way, better and safer housing, as well as related services, have become much more accessible.

 

What is the social impact?

The project has improved community engagement and strengthened the organisations representing local people (ADESCOs). This has led to inter-communal action on health. The educational aspects of the project have successfully brought about behavioural change.

The most vulnerable and excluded were targeted for housing improvements and inclusion was actively promoted (for example the participation of women in social and construction processes; the education of all irrespective of gender and age; linkages and collaboration between Community Based Organisations and state agencies). A particular effort was made to reach young people, thus raising awareness and creating skills at an early age.

 

Barriers

  • People lacked belief in institutions, because they had been let down twice by other agencies before. Thus, time was required to establish credibility and trust.
  • Agricultural and religious calendars are important to people, and the project had to adjust the timing of its activities to those.
  • Some people were not interested in the project because they already had good housing, or did not see its need. Many others were unaware of the presence and risks of Chagas and other diseases, and therefore taking action against those was not a priority to them. Thus, the project needed to spend time on raising awareness.
  • It was found that many households did not have secure tenure, preventing their participating; thanks to flexibility of the main donor, this was tackled, and at least some form of guarantee established to improve security.
  • The lessons of the project have been analysed and are being made available as an example for others to replicate; the project is aware, though, that local contexts differ, and the model offered therefore may have to be adapted to each situation.

 

Lessons Learned

  • The project has helped to strengthen community cohesion; rather than acting individually, people now have learned to address problems as a community.
  • Households face several vulnerabilities, of which exposure to disease and natural disasters is one. But e.g. land tenure is also insecure and should be integrated in such projects from the onset.
  • The project could also have integrated medical interventions more closely, alongside the physical ones addressed by FUNDASAL. This would have required closer collaboration with other agencies charged with health issues.
  • It is essential to formulate any collaboration into formal agreements, to ensure their continuity.
  • The success of projects like this lies primarily in the capabilities it leaves with families to change their health behaviour and maintain their houses well, with some institutional support of permanent institutions like the health service.

 

Evaluation

The established health committees extensively monitor families’ hygiene habits twice yearly, with FUNDASAL’s monitoring unit, thus establishing sources of contamination and any illnesses. In addition, the Health Service of Santa Ana carries out vector monitoring on bugs collected, and thus continues to maintain vector control. It is also undertaking a pre- and post-intervention evaluation of the FUNDASAL project in order to initiate a process of Chagas disease prevention. There have been two major hygiene surveys, of hundreds of families, showing a huge increase in awareness of Chagas disease and its causes and in hygiene behaviour, and reduction in presence of the bug. The project has been externally evaluated.

 

Transfer

Replica projects have been formulated for two areas of the country and presented to the Inter American Development Bank and the Vice Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. They are awaiting review and approval.

Neighbouring communities have observed and learned from the Pinalito experience and started to copy some of the techniques, sometimes assisted by Pinalito residents. The health promoter, recruited by the Ministry of Health, is also helping to transfer the experience to neighbouring communities. At least two communities have come to visit to learn from the project.

The project has become a model used by the Research Centre of the University of El Salvador to present to other municipalities with a high rate of Chagas disease. As a result, the town of Tacachico has prepared a Chagas project.

The community of Matapalos in Honduras has been trained and is currently implementing the intervention model.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Upgrading of Audi União Shantytown: Curitiba

0

Upgrading of Audi União Shantytown: Curitiba

Policies and regulations
Promotion and production

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2014:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: South America
City: SCIA
Country/Region: Brazil, Ceilândia

Description

This upgrading project has been carried out in Audi União, one of largest and poorest squatter settlements in Curitiba, Brazil. The project has protected the households living in high-risk areas on the banks of the Iguaçu river, it provides safer and improved living conditions whilst avoiding evictions and ensuring that families are able to stay within the same community. It has developed an integrated multidisciplinary and participatory approach involving partnerships between the local community, local leaders, civil society organisations and government agencies at local, state and national levels.

 

Project Description

What are its aims and objectives?

The main purpose of the project is the protection of households living in high-risk areas on the banks of the Iguaçu river in Audi União shantytown. The project includes the improvement and/or provision of urban infrastructure (drainage systems, sanitation and flood control measures); housing within the local area for families living in high-risk areas, including one-, two- and three-bedroom units; recovery of areas of environmental protection; the regularisation of land tenure and social programmes contributing to safety and security, urban mobility, gender equality and social inclusion. Investments have also been made in the construction and improvement of public health, education, culture, sports and leisure facilities. Residents have been involved throughout the process through partnerships established between government agencies and local residents’ associations. The project has improved homes without resettlement and has only resettled those people who were at risk from flooding or landslides.

What context does it operate in?

Curitiba is one of the fastest growing cities in Brazil, with a municipal population of 1.8 million people. The city is known for a number of innovative initiatives to improve the local environment. Audi União informal settlement is home to 3,144 low-income families, many of whom were previously living in precarious conditions in an area of environmental protection on the banks of the Iguaçu river – an area which is prone to frequent and devastating floods. It is the largest and poorest informal settlement in the city of Curitiba, with 70 per cent of households earning less than the minimum wage and 86.5 per cent of households lacking adequate water supply, electricity, waste collection and drainage systems. With one of the highest homicide rates in the city, residents of Audi União face conditions of insecurity and vulnerability. Many of the houses are built on stilts and are constructed using poor quality building materials. The project has been implemented by Curitiba Municipal Housing Company (COHAB/CT), a public housing institution, established in 1965 to provide housing for low-income households in the city of Curitiba. Its activities are carried out with funding from local and national government sources as well as through public-private partnerships. COHAB/CT implements Federal Government housing programmes as well as programmes for urban and informal settlement upgrading.

What are its key features?

This comprehensive informal settlement upgrading project has been carried out in Audi União through an integrated, multidisciplinary and participatory approach involving partnerships between the local community, local leaders, civil society organisations and government agencies at local, state and national levels. Residents, through partnerships established between government agencies and local residents’ associations, have been involved throughout the process. The project includes the improvement and/or provision of urban infrastructure and services. Investments have also been made in the construction and improvement of public health, education, culture, sports and leisure facilities. New housing is provided to the families living in high risk areas and land tenure has been regularised. Social programmes contributing to safety and security, urban mobility, gender equality and social inclusion have been introduced. Flood control measures, though still ongoing, have led to a significant decrease in flooding in the area.

How is it funded?

Total funding amounting to US$19.5 million (R$38 million) has been provided by the CAIXA Federal Savings Bank (67.2 per cent) and by the Curitiba Municipality (32.8 per cent), covering the following areas: a) flood control; b) recovery of areas of environmental protection; c) construction and refurbishment of housing; d) land tenure regularisation; e) urban upgrading; f) social inclusion. In addition, the Municipality has invested in the construction and improvement of public facilities relating to health, education, culture and sports, as well as collaborating with the state government of Paraná on the provision of public security and leisure facilities.

What impact has it had?

The project has made significant improvements in the living conditions of residents, including flood risk reduction, increased security and improved sanitation and environmental conditions within the community and surrounding areas. Following the implementation of the flood prevention system, there has not been any subsequent flooding in the area, despite heavy rains and flooding in surrounding areas not covered by the project. Income levels have increased, with a 206 per cent increase in the number of families earning at least the minimum wage. There has been a reduction of 33 per cent in the number of violent deaths and 26 per cent in the number of armed robberies. Urban mobility has been improved through a range of actions, including the paving and widening of streets, public lighting, improved public transport (with 20 additional bus lines), selective waste collection and formal address registration. Residents have since been involved in carrying out improvements to their housing and there has been a gradual change in habits and in the relationship of residents with public/communal spaces.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • Integrated, multidisciplinary approach, including three levels of government, carried out through partnerships between a range of actors and levels of government. The complexity of the issues to be addressed required common goals, participatory planning and integrated actions that are environmentally responsible and socially just, with community members involved throughout the process.
  • Ensuring that families were relocated only where necessary and not more than 500 metres from their original homes, respecting community and neighbourhood ties. The conventional solution might have been a full or partial resettlement of the area, as it involves the occupation of an area of environmental protection, subject to flooding. This solution addressed the environmental problems whilst ensuring that all residents were able to remain in their community, avoiding the demolition of thousands of homes built with the efforts and financial resources of the community.
  • Going beyond physical improvements, establishing effective communication channels between community residents and government, addressing gender issues (particularly around land titling) and working to ensure the right to adequate housing.

 

What is the environmental impact?

The project has used conventional building materials, many of which are locally sourced, for the construction of the new housing units.

It has kept existing housing and communal buildings except in the areas of highest risk, making use of existing resources.

The project involves the provision of adequate water supply, sanitation, waste collection and drainage infrastructure, which was previously not in place in the Audi União settlement. A macro-drainage system has been built to address the issues of intense flooding in the area as well as delineating the boundaries of the settlement and areas of environmental preservation, with the overall aim of reducing risk to people and the environment. No flooding has been recorded in the area following implementation, despite heavy rains.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

The project has been carried out with funding from both federal and municipal government sources and in partnership with a range of other organisations and public service providers. In other projects, where similar levels of state funding were not available, COHAB/CT has obtained funding for its work through public-private partnerships.

The project has supported skills development to enhance local family incomes.

A range of training courses and activities focussing on income generation and employment were carried out within the community and by 2010 there had been a 206 per cent increase in the number of families earning at least the minimum wage. In addition, the fact that residents have been able to remain in their community rather than being resettled in distant areas has ensured that existing employment and access to places of work have not been affected.

 

What is the social impact?

The project approach demonstrates the strong commitment of all actors involved and has facilitated greater cooperation both within the community and amongst different government agencies and institutional partners. Local NGOs have played a key role in facilitating collaboration and the project has worked to foster a sense of belonging, confidence, permanence and continuity within the community, resulting in the strengthening of social ties and maintenance of existing relationships and networks.

The project works with highly-vulnerable families and seeks to implement strategies that oppose social exclusion and lead to a reduction in social inequalities. Women in particular have benefited from the project, particularly with regards to the land tenure regularisation/titling process where priority is given to women heads of household.

The project has worked to improve access to rights and information, promote citizenship and empower communities. Residents now pay government-subsidised utility bills and formalising property ownership, improving urban mobility and ensuring access to public infrastructure and services have all contributed towards enabling residents to take a more active role in society.

 

Barriers

  • From the outset, the problems faced were complex and required integrated and multidisciplinary solutions. COHAB/CT has worked in partnership with the community and a range of local organisations to address these issues in an integrated way.
  • Due to financial constraints, the original project did not include the construction of public health and educational facilities and there is a demand for schools and health units in the area, as well as leisure and recreational facilities. This has affected children and young people in particular, and the gap has been partially filled through the application of municipal resources in the construction of a municipal nursery, a youth centre, health units and a centre for social assistance.
  • Although there has been a significant improvement in living conditions and quality of life for residents, a few key issues still remain, including safe access to rail transportation and improved connections to the sewage disposal system, which is in the process of being carried out through another project.

 

Lessons Learned

  • During the implementation of the project, it was found that the problems arising from informal settlements in areas of environmental preservation affected the city as a whole, causing social, economic, physical and environmental damage.
  • Partnership working was essential, as the complex problems faced cannot be fully resolved by a single institution or group of people. The establishment of strong partnerships enabled discussions to take place based on the specific conditions in the area, as well as making it possible for government actions to go beyond purely physical interventions.
  • In order to establish these partnerships it is important to recognise the importance of engaging the three levels of government (federal, state and local), the various sectors within the municipal government and relevant organisations, local groups and professionals engaged in the pursuit of access to social rights, public goods and services.
  • In order to ensure a successful outcome, it is important to establish direct links between communities and government through a participatory approach, increased access to information and improved communication channels. It is recognised that a strong partnership between the community and government is critical to effectively guarantee the rights of citizens and the development of a sense of appreciation and belonging amongst residents.
  • Integrated actions in urban upgrading and infrastructure provision should be carried out in accordance with public policies relating to housing, sanitation, social support, health, education and the environment.

 

Evaluation

Monthly reports are produced on the activities carried out by the social assistance team, as well as gathering data on the housing units and other urban and physical intervention processes. The multidisciplinary team carrying out the project meets each month in order to strengthen communication and monitor the work that has been completed. A range of indicators have been developed for post-occupancy monitoring and evaluation with funding provided by the Brazilian Ministry of Cities, in order to give visibility to the results, impacts and level of satisfaction of the local community, as well as providing an opportunity to reflect on the implementation process and the effectiveness of the results achieved. A final research project is due to be carried out on the project encompassing three key areas:

  • Housing and Urban Environment: including basic infrastructure, urban mobility, environmental quality and housing.
  • Social Inclusion: focussing on access to public services (education, health, sport, leisure, culture, social assistance and public security), citizenship and participation and job market insertion.
  • Household Satisfaction: capturing the evaluation of local residents regarding their own housing conditions, urban infrastructure and services, as well as looking at the impact of the project on social and community life.

 

Transfer

The approach is currently being scaled up by COHAB/CT and is being applied in 64 active projects in the city of Curitiba in areas that, as in the case of Audi União, require integrated actions. In each case the approach is being adapted to local specificities and complexities.

Although there has not been any national or international transfer of the approach as yet, there has been a great deal of interest in the project and Audi União has received a number of national and international visitors, including the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan.

Links

Authors:

Community Management of Urban Infrastructure and Housing Improvements in Greater Buenos Aires

0

Community Management of Urban Infrastructure and Housing Improvements in Greater Buenos Aires

Policies and regulations
Financing Progressive financing
Urban Design Liveability Regulación Técnica
Promotion and production Materials Self-management Cooperatives

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2013: Finalista

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: South America
City: Buenos Aires
Country/Region: Argentina, Buenos Aires

Description

Over the last 20 years, Fundación Pro Vivienda Social (Social Housing Foundation – FPVS) has worked to improve living conditions in Greater Buenos Aires, by promoting social inclusion, empowering communities, improving housing conditions and connecting them to basic services. Since 2010, FPVS has been implementing the Community Development Plan (CDP) in all the communities where it works, giving a holistic vision and an increasingly important role to residents in the development of their communities. Three strategies have been defined to carry out the CDP: community empowerment, design and implementation of innovative projects and promotion of pro-poor businesses, with five programmes running to date, namely the Integral Gasification Project, Housing Improvement and Young Builders Project, Community Education Centre (CEC), Neighbourhood Development Observatory and Inclusive Business Park.

 

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

The mission of FPVS is to provide long-term, community-led solutions to the habitat problems facing low-income neighbourhoods. This participatory model relies on the active collaboration of residents, companies, banks and governments, and its central objective is to promote community development. The model aims to stimulate community life and civic participation, social capital, affordable access to goods and services, household budgets and savings.

Context

Rapid, unplanned urbanisation has given rise to alarming inequalities and housing deficits across Latin America. In Argentina, more than five million families rely on government action to gain access to services, but public policy has failed to meet their needs, leaving the process of urbanisation in the hands of local residents. In Greater Buenos Aires, over six million people live in poverty with limited or no access to basic services or affordable adequate housing. This, combined with a culture of distrust and disinterest among banks and companies, has led to financial exclusion and social marginalisation of millions of people.

The municipality of Moreno is characterised by processes of self-construction, high levels of informality and unemployment, lack of infrastructure and little or no access to basic and financial services. Only 19 per cent of the population has access to drainage, 41 per cent to potable water, 32 per cent to the natural gas network, 45 per cent of families live in precarious housing conditions.

Key features

The Project is being implemented in 18 marginalised neighbourhoods in the municipality of Moreno, in Greater Buenos Aires. It promotes social inclusion by empowering communities, improving housing conditions and connecting them to basic services. FPVS acts as a facilitator, promoting a model in which residents and a range of actors work together to achieve a common goal. Links and partnerships have been formed with public and private entities at local, national and international levels, which include financers and donors, government (at various levels), international organisations, technical support intermediaries, and research and academic bodies.

Community empowerment: FPVS trains local community members as Community Developers to work in areas of promotion, conflict resolution, administration, communication and computer science, generating social capital. Additionally, the Young Builders’ Project trains students from local technical school in construction and provides practical experience through internships and professional experience.

Housing improvement and gas supply: The Neighbourhood Trust Funds (NTFs) are used as a platform that provides a collective guarantee, ensures transparency and reduces the risk involved for investors. The NTFs act as savings and credit schemes, with initial funds provided by donations, which the FPVS has sought specifically for this purpose, acting as a collective guarantee for lenders. The model requires more than 60 per cent of residents to sign up to participate in the programme to make viable, who start repaying the loan once the service is provided. As part of the Integral Gasification Project, five NTFs have been set up to date (one for housing improvement and four gasification funds), bringing together 16,000 families from which 4,500 have already been connected to the natural gas network. The NTF set up for housing improvement serves all families participating in the gasification projects, to facilitate housing improvements and make better use of the new gas connection. The beneficiaries typically use them to purchase gas appliances such as hot water systems, ovens and heaters.

The model consists of a series of steps:

  • Residents are trained to participate in the projects as Community Developers, who promote the programmes in their blocks. Community organisation is consolidated via the establishment of NTFs.
  • A financial and technical plan is created for each household based on individual family needs. Later, a single proposal is made to the bank on behalf of thousands of residents, taking into account their diverse financial capacities.
  • The financers accept the collective guarantee offered by the community – this includes an additional sum (18 per cent) paid by residents to the bank until the works are completed (a contingency fund), which is returned to the community via NTFs.
  • After the works are carried out, the residents repay their loans at the pace they can afford (over a maximum period of 72 months).
  • Once the lenders have been repaid, the residents determine how they would like to reinvest the contingency fund into the community to further improve neighbourhoods with e.g. drainage, pavements, street lighting, or community centres.

Promotion of pro-poor markets: FPVS acts as a mediator, connecting demand for services and credit in low-income communities with goods and services from companies (bank, gas providers, etc.) which are apprehensive about working with these sectors, aiming to stimulate fair, inclusive and responsible business practices.

Covering costs 

  • FPVS relies on operational and institutional revenue to carry out its work. Operational revenue is obtained from the fees attached to the services to the NTFs and the administration of funding for the ‘Mejor Vivir’ programme (from the national government). Institutional revenue is sourced from open donations and project funding provided by the IADB (Inter-American Development Bank) and IAF (Inter-American Foundation).
  • Collaboration is promoted between companies, governments, local suppliers and residents as well as with local and international banks. More than US$5 million has been sourced from diverse investors, including resident’s contributions (36 per cent), Multilateral Investment Fund – MIF – (22 per cent), service providers (5 per cent), commercial credits (19 per cent), public subsidies (11 per cent) and FPVS (7 per cent).
  • The NTFs are established with initial funds provided by donations through FPVS.
  • The current, standard price of a household natural gas network connection is US$1,680. The average home improvement loan is US$340.
  • The current loan interest rate is 39 per cent. Given the high inflation rate (25 per cent), the actual rate is 14 per cent per year. Given the long period given to repay the loans (up to 72 months) and the small size of the instalments, the majority of families are able to repay the loans with little or no impact on the household budget. On average, residents take approximately 40 months to repay loans. The monthly repayment is made via the gas bill, and despite the payment, families increase their disposable income by five per cent per month due to reduced energy costs.

Impact

  • As per 2013, 16,000 families participate in five NTFs, of which 4,500 have already been connected to the natural gas network, having a positive impact on the health, quality of life and comfort for approximately 20,000 people in 18 neighbourhoods.
  • 8,500 micro-credit loans and technical construction support have been given to improve housing conditions of families.
  • Alliances have been formed with local grassroots organisations and international bodies.
  • 300 Community Developers have gained new skills, and 30 Young Builders have been trained to date.
  • Households with natural gas increased their disposable incomes due to reduced energy costs (five per cent on average) and home values increased (between 15 and 20 per cent), as a result of the improvements undertaken.
  • Communities are empowered and organised, and continue to make improvements on their living environment once the initial works are finished.
  • By acting as a nexus between the communities and service providers, the FPVS has an impact on the access of these sectors, which changed from being considered ‘high risk’ to viable clients for the companies serving them.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • Community trusts and innovative finance mechanisms are used to manage resources and deliver the project, using housing as a mobilising agent through which the community gets together to combine savings and resources, which it has pioneered in Argentina. The financial model offers a diverse range of plans, with high repayment rates.
  • Neighbourhood Committees and working groups are formed within and across neighbourhoods, and partnerships have been established with a number of actors. The project works on the basis of consensus and inclusion and all decisions are taken through a participatory process, with communities playing a leading role in managing every stage of the process.
  • Establishing an inclusive, pro-poor business model: FPVS acts as a mediator between the communities and service providers.

 

What is the environmental impact?

  • FPVS encourages the participation of local businesses, builders and gas fitters for the supply of materials and services needed for the different programmes, using a public tender process.
  • Home improvements made via the gas project encourage residents to consider changes in layout, insulation and the use of appliances in order to reduce energy consumption and promote new greener habits amongst residents.
  • Natural gas is a cleaner energy source than wood, charcoal, and kerosene, and its use for cooking and heating has a positive impact on people’s health and the environment.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

  • Although residents pay for the goods and services they receive, lines of finance have been made available to cover project costs. In the future, it is hoped that creditors and companies will participate in the NTFs making non-returnable contributions to finance part of the preoperational costs required to establish them, currently covered by donations through the FPVS.
  • Households participating in the gasification programmes have increased their assets by between 15 and 20 per cent, thanks to a rise in the value of their homes as a result of the improvements undertaken. On top of this, their disposable incomes have increased by an equivalent of five per cent, due to reduced energy costs.
  • The NTFs permit resources to be invested to address lack of infrastructure and in housing improvements. In addition to increasing home value and the savings generated by energy costs, residents can improve their houses incrementally, and use their proven credit performance to access other financial services from banks.

 

What is the social impact?

  • FPVS works to stimulate interaction between residents, banks and companies at a local level. The project helps to bring alive a spirit of community and solidarity amongst families, and a sense of trust and civic culture is cultivated through the participatory approach, resulting in neighbourhood development for the whole community.
  • Community Developers (mainly women) have been trained in areas that have not only improved their employment opportunities, but have also had a positive impact on their self-esteem and position in the community.
  • The Young Builders Programme trains students in local construction and provides practical experience in housing projects in their own neighbourhoods, generating local employment.
  • Families connected to the gas network suffer from a 50 per cent reduction in gastro-illnesses (as food is cooked more thoroughly for longer periods), 20 per cent less from respiratory illness and 40 per cent less from colds and flu thanks to improved heating and cooking methods (charcoal, wood and kerosene or gas bottles typically used otherwise).
  • FPVS is working with UNDP to allow residents to access legal titles to their homes and land. The planned activities include carrying out a study to understand different situations and types of land and home ownership problems in the area; producing a mechanism for residents to obtain property titles and normalising their situation within the existing legislation; undertaking training and awareness campaigns via the CEC; and providing legal support.
  • Social initiatives are being implemented to include the poorest families: the NTFs are open to all residents, and users begin to pay once they use the service. In order to make it available to all, the repayment plan is calculated according to each family’s needs and possibilities, including those in informal employment, unemployed and retired.
  • The model empowers residents to be agents for change. They are involved in every step of the process, and play a central role in the management and promotion of projects. The creation of NTFs requires between 60 and 70 per cent of residents to participate, and residents promote the project and are responsible for reaching this target level of engagement.
  • As well as their involvement as Community Developers, residents participate and benefit by acting as suppliers of materials and services needed to carry out the projects.

 

Barriers

  • Distrust and lack of coordination between stakeholders. This has been overcome by promoting collective social platforms, which increase collaboration and understanding. Public tenders provide a space to work together and overcome these problems.
  • Encouraging residents to invest in their neighbourhoods is a challenge. In order to overcome this, the creation of NTFs helps to promote investing in infrastructure and housing, instead of spending on consumer goods, helping to break the poverty cycle.

 

Lessons Learned

  • Experiences demonstrate the importance of including participants at all levels in the development of programmes to combat poverty. In fact, residents have the capacity to build their houses and invest their savings, with a high repayment rate (98 per cent).
  • Pilot programmes are used to identify successful strategies and create programmes with high success rates, specifically tailored to the needs of the community, providing important lessons on methodologies and timeframes for scaling up.
  • Working with governments is important to put ideas in the public sphere and help them to be heard by decision-makers. FPVS is collaborating with CIPPEC (‘Centro de Implementación de Políticas Públicas para la Equidad y el Crecimiento’ – Public Policy Implementation Centre for equity and Growth) on public policy implementation, in conjunction with central government programmes.

 

Evaluation

The Neighbourhood Development Observatory initiative, developed by FPVS with Torcuato di Tella University, aims to better understand the neighbourhoods and evaluate the impact of the other programmes. Additionally, FPVS will evaluate the results of the gas project in 2013, in conjunction with the MIF.

 

Transfer

The Integral Gasification Project, currently being implemented, is the direct result of the pilot experience acquired in two previous smaller scale gas projects: ‘Union por los Vecinos’ and ‘Redes Solidarias’ which connected 4,000 families in the same area.

In an informal manner, NGOs have taken the model and applied it to smaller scale projects.

A range of government and private sector organisations have requested technical assistance from FPVS to transfer the model to other parts of the country. In the context of the MIF initiatives in the country, the model will be transferred to a region outside the municipality of Moreno, where it will benefit approximately 3,000 families.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

CCOC Beaver Barracks Development

0

CCOC Beaver Barracks Development

Mismatches Services
Urban Design Liveability Inclusion
Promotion and production Participatory processes Innovation Management and maintenance

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2013: Finalista

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: North America
Country/Region: Canada, Ottawa

Description

Beaver Barracks is a large affordable and environmentally sustainable housing development located in downtown Ottawa, on a brownfield site. It was commissioned in 2007 to the Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corporation (CCOC) by the City of Ottawa through the Action Ottawa programme – the City’s primary programme for increasing the supply of low-income affordable housing in Ottawa. The programme is designed to facilitate the development of mixed income communities that are appropriately designed and managed, and built on a scale that ensures integration within the neighbourhood. The Beaver Barracks innovatively integrates a mixed housing model with environmentally sustainable building design and operations. In fact, Beaver Barracks is one of the most sustainable rental housing developments in Ottawa from both a design and lifestyle perspective. The development is mixed in terms of incomes – with market, below-market and deeply subsidised rents – as well as access requirements, age and household composition.

 

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

CCOC is a community-based, tenant and member directed, private non-profit housing organisation whose mission is to create, maintain and promote housing for those on low and moderate incomes. It is one of the largest private non-profit affordable housing providers in Canada. In 2007, CCOC won a competitive Request for Proposals from the City of Ottawa to develop the Beaver Barracks site,  which is the biggest and most sustainable single development CCOC has done to date. Beaver Barracks aims to increase the supply of long-term affordable rental housing in downtown Ottawa and show that high performance energy-efficient buildings can be attractive, accessible, and affordable.

Context

Key problems faced in downtown Ottawa before the redevelopment of Beaver Barracks were similar to those in many other North American cities – the vast majority of new residential construction is private condominiums, which are unaffordable to a growing low and moderate income population. Older privately owned rental housing stock is in disrepair, providing poor quality housing, and is at risk of conversion and redevelopment. Specifically, there is a lack of affordable housing stock for families, older people living alone and people with accessibility needs.

At the time of the commissioning of the Beaver Barracks redevelopment, there were approximately 10,000 households on the City of Ottawa Social Housing Registry waiting list for subsidised housing, and a need for all household unit sizes from bachelors to large family sized homes. There was a gap to fill in terms of developing affordable rental housing that would regenerate the existing site, improve the quality of life of its tenants and keep families in the downtown area. The area where the development is located had previously been in decline throughout the 80s and 90s as residential and commercial development stagnated and parking lots proliferated. The influx of condominium developments in the last 10 years has threatened the mixed-income nature of the area, eroding the existing social fabric through gentrification.

Key features

Beaver Barracks is a large affordable housing development located in downtown Ottawa, on a brownfield site that was formerly occupied by WWII military barracks and which was sold by the Federal Government to the City of Ottawa in the early 1990s. It was earmarked for controlled rental housing and was the first site to be developed when a jointly funded government affordable housing programme was re-established.

The development comprises 254 dwelling units in five buildings, offering a blend of market, below-market and deeply subsidised rents for people on a range of incomes. Units range in size from studio flats to three bedrooms, for single persons and families, including older persons and those with accessibility problems. There is also ground floor commercial space in two buildings and meeting space for community groups. Tenants on subsidised rents are drawn from the City’s pre-qualified waiting list. The market rental tenants are selected on a first-come first serve basis. Market rents are capped to be no higher than the average market rent for the neighbourhood. It is one of the few affordable rental buildings in Ottawa’s core because of the gentrification pressures to build more profitable condominium developments.

During the design phase, integrated design workshops, known as charettes, were found to be an effective way of encouraging communities and their building professionals to think in a positive, innovative and collaborative way about building design, construction, operations and lifestyles.

Built to a high environmental standard, the development includes geothermal heating and cooling, a green roof, tenant-run gardens and a high performance building envelope, including triple glazed windows. Beaver Barracks is also wheelchair accessible and smoke free, with residents committing through their lease not to smoke in their apartments or on the property. Responsible waste diversion (recycling and organics) is encouraged by not providing rubbish chutes and having all waste sorted in a common room. Tenants are actively involved and sign a Green Commitment Pledge to reduce their environmental impact through lifestyle and consumer choices (although these green commitments are not legally binding).

Fifteen per cent of all the apartments are reserved for tenants who benefit from additional daily living support, and CCOC partners with several organisations to deliver that support, including to tenants with intellectual and physical disabilities, mental illness, or who have recently experienced homelessness. At Beaver Barracks there are 25 wheelchair-accessible units, and over 90 per cent of remaining units as well as all building amenity spaces are ‘visitable’ to people in a wheelchair.

Covering costs

  • The total capital budget for the development of Beaver Barracks was US$64 million. CCOC used a combination of public and private financing, including CCOC equity (three per cent), government grants (35 per cent) and mortgage financing (62 per cent). Over 70 per cent of Beaver Barracks revenue comes from rent, either by tenants (42 per cent) or rent subsidies paid through the City (30 per cent). The remainder comes from a small mortgage subsidy from the Province of Ontario (16 per cent) and fees from various services (12 per cent).
  • Over 80 per cent of CCOC’s total operating revenue in its full portfolio comes from rent (either paid by the tenants themselves or with state assistance,) 13 per cent from state operating subsidies, with the remainder coming from miscellaneous revenue from parking, laundry and commercial rent. A surplus of US$10,000 is anticipated on the US$20 million budget in 2013.

Impact

Although only recently fully completed, there has been a noticeable change in the neighbourhood. For 15 years the site was unoccupied and had been an eyesore. With 254 households including over 100 children, the development has helped reinvigorate the immediate neighbourhood. Local schools and day care centres which used to struggle with declining populations now have a permanent new source of families and children to use the available services.

CCOC is working with the City of Ottawa to develop financial templates and projection tables that will help the city and other local housing providers plan new affordable housing developments.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • Integration of a mixed housing model with environmental building design and operations.
  • Offering a blend of market, below market and deeply subsidised rents within one project.
  • The sites and buildings have a reduced environmental footprint, including the materials and technologies used but also the active engagement of the residents in the process.
  • Comprehensive waste recycling managed by residents is innovative in the Canadian context.

 

What is the environmental impact?

Beaver Barracks is one of the most sustainable rental housing developments in Ottawa from both a design and lifestyle perspective.

Resource efficient design features include:

  • A geothermal heating/cooling system, an energy recovery ventilator, tight building envelope; and triple glazed windows ensure that the buildings use 40 per cent less energy than comparable buildings.
  • Waste diversion is encouraged by not installing garbage chutes and using a common sorting room for waste, recycling and organics.
  • Energy efficient washing machines, low-flow plumbing fixtures and drought-resistant xeriscaping (water-wise landscaping) help save water.
  • The building envelope and floor include 40 per cent recycled material, and reclaimed wood was used for architectural details in the common areas.
  • Promoting a sustainable lifestyle: All tenants sign a pledge to commit to greening their lifestyles and reducing their environmental footprint. During their annual lease renewal, tenants will be provided with a summary of their past year’s pledges; a calculation of the reduction in their carbon footprint as a result of their green commitments. Each building has signs in common areas that promote the environmental design aspects of the building and reinforce green norms of behaviour.
  • CCOC facilitates a tenant-run Green Team to engage other tenants in green lifestyles, such as growing food in the on-site organic community gardens and providing workshops on harvesting fruit and nut trees.
  • CCOC sees gardening as a step toward food sovereignty. Summer 2013 will see the grand opening of Victory Gardens – a central tenant garden which will include a children’s garden, an accessible garden and a plot for donation to the Food Bank.
  • A variety of local food and food security programmes have been developed, including giving out ‘Buy Local’ food guides to all new tenants, with maps and lists of local farmers markets, helping start the Ottawa Good Food Box programme, providing free meeting space for gardening groups and working with local food security and gardening groups to increase participation.

In addition, the project also has wider environmental impacts:

  • Reuse of a brownfield site reduces the need for urban sprawl and the destruction of natural habitat.
  • The site’s central location enables tenants to walk to local shopping amenities, or use their bikes, take public transport or participate on a car-sharing programme which is located on site. Secure indoor bike parking and accommodation for e-bikes is provided. Car parking is available to less than 40 per cent of units.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

  • The initial work relied upon grants being available from the government. However, an independent audit by the City of Ottawa found that Beaver Barracks may begin to generate a modest surplus after the first five to ten years of operations.
  • Although the project was not conceived as one of community economic development, having an affordable home helps residents to live within their means and opens doors to education, employment and training.
  • Beaver Barracks provides high quality rental housing to many households that would not otherwise be able to afford it. Over the full development, 45 per cent of tenants will pay ‘rent geared to income’ (30 per cent of their gross household income); 15 per cent of tenants will pay ‘below market rent’ (70 per cent of the full rent) and 40 per cent of tenants will pay no more than the average market rent for the neighbourhood, which in itself is significantly lower than typical rent for newer condominium apartments.

 

What is the social impact?

Community co-operation and social integration:

  • Adding outdoor amenity space on balconies, rooftops or decks increases the available living area and provides a natural meeting spot for neighbours.
  • Planter boxes and gardens provide a launch point for discussion, which CCOC facilitates by distributing free flower, vegetable and herb plants to tenants, and by setting up tenant-run gardens.
  • As tenants get to know each other, they have organised pot lucks, games nights and kids’ clubs. They have also worked together on community issues, for example, leading the fight to restore a neighbourhood park after it was turned into a parking lot.

Skills development and resident involvement:

  • CCOC has developed partnerships with a number of community groups to provide opportunities to tenants to increase their skills, two of which are Resilient Kitchen which provides workshops on cooking, canning and preserving and, more recently, knitting; and Just Food, which provides free workshops on seed saving, organic gardening and pest control.
  • In addition to participating in CCOC governance, tenants are encouraged to get involved in their building at a practical level, taking advantage of green education programmes, gardening, composting, and participating in waste diversion initiatives.
  • Further opportunities for social engagement have been facilitated, including Ottawa School of Art (provides bursaries to tenants for art classes), YMCA-YWCA (provides reduced membership fees for recreational programmes).

Combatting social inequality:

  • All apartments are of the same quality and design, regardless of whether they are for market or subsidised rent.
  • CCOC has always worked to meet the housing needs of those who struggle with issues that make their housing more difficult or precarious, such as mental health and addiction issues and physical disabilities.
  • An accessible community garden is being designed in conjunction with tenants from ‘The In Community’, the agency that provides attendant support to people with complex physical disabilities.

 

Barriers

  • As this project represented a 20 per cent growth in CCOC’s portfolio, it found itself absorbing a proportionate growth in staff, new tenants and new technologies in a short period, complicated by changes in the senior staff team. CCOC had to carefully manage transition and integration of new staff.
  • This was the first multi-residential unit building in Ottawa where the entire development (indoor and outdoor) is smoke free. CCOC had to provide notice of eviction to some tenants who violated this policy, but in all cases tenants changed their behaviour and no one was evicted.
  • There was a significant increase in construction material costs during the development that challenged the financial viability and affordability of the project. CCOC learned that a significant risk analysis when doing such an expensive project as well as redesign of the project is necessary in order to adjust the budget.

 

Lessons Learned

  • Accessible unit design had to be adjusted in order to address individual resident concerns. CCOC realised after the first stage that tenants with accessibility issues need to be accommodated to address their individual needs and revised the design of the accessible units for the second stage to accommodate individual tenant accessibility concerns.
  • CCOC invested a large amount of capital in the geothermal technology. Although this is innovative, it was expensive and complex, causing increased costs to operate. As a result, CCOC will put an emphasis on passive design in future development to decrease a building’s environmental footprint rather than active technology such as geothermal.

 

Evaluation

CCOC is monitoring several environmental and social performance indicators, including the utility consumption and waste diversion, as well as tenants’ fulfilment of their green commitments. Data is currently being collected on solid waste, energy use and electricity consumption to understand whether the designed energy savings can be achieved.

 

Transfer

Beaver Barracks serves as a model for future CCOC affordable housing developments, and has served as a pilot for many CCOC ‘green living’ tools: tenant working groups, environmental building signs, no smoking policy, waste diversion, community gardens, biking parking, and car sharing.

One of CCOC’s partners has used their experience of being involved in the Beaver Barracks development to go green in their other properties.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Renewable Energy for Farmers

0

Renewable Energy for Farmers

Policies and regulations

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2013: Finalista

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Asia
City: Jinma
Country/Region: China

Description

Continuity of an integrated planning approach over the last 30 years has led to the development of Freiburg as a leading exemplar of sustainable living in a compact car-lite city. Two urban extensions – Vauban and Rieselfeld – provide homes for 17,500 people and have been developed using low carbon technologies, self-build, and with excellent mass transit systems. The intention was to develop these districts to high environmental standards as well as ensuring that they had strong social structures and communities. A key success factor in Freiburg’s approach has been its focus on citizen participation and active democracy, enabling it to engage a wide range of stakeholders in its radical urban planning approach.

 

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

To create an environmentally and socially sustainable city through enlightened planning and pioneering use of renewable energy systems.

Context

Freiburg is an ancient university city with a population of 220,000 located in southern Germany near the Swiss and French borders. It is a rich city with a GDP per capita 11 per cent above the European average and has the highest concentration of sunshine in Germany, with more than 1,700 hours per year. Urban planning and development have always had a special impact on Freiburg. After the devastating destructions of the World War II and with 85 per cent of the inner city destroyed, the programmatic corner stones for Freiburg’s exemplary spatial and settlement development were laid out during the post-war years. The city was rebuilt from the 1950s onwards, taking note of traditional urban patterns and cultural heritage, but with a focus on sustainable development. In the 1960s, the crucial decision was made to hold on to the tram network as the backbone of urban development in Freiburg and consequently, to expand it accordingly. In addition to this, the “five fingers” concept was developed for the distribution of green spaces to clearly separate open zone from building zones. These elements – the tram as well as the division into green areas and building areas – are still the guiding aspects for Freiburg’s urban development today.

The Planning Department has long been a key department in the municipality and has always been progressive, introducing pedestrianisation, for example, in the city centre in 1949, and refusing to build shopping malls outside of the city. There is a stable political system, with the Green Party having dominance for the last decade. With up to 35 per cent of the overall city vote, the Green Party is the strongest in any major German city.

Key features

The process of sustainable city planning started in the 1970s when the citizens of Freiburg did not want to accept a planned nuclear power station. In 1986, with the nuclear catastrophe at Chernobyl fresh in their minds, Freiburg’s municipal council decided to have a future-oriented energy policy based on renewable resources wherever possible. This led to the development of Freiburg as a global first-rank model of sustainable urban life. It is a compact city development with car-lite systems.

Freiburg has a strong orientation to walking, bicycling, and public transport, with car-free areas and high levels of accessibility for people of all ages. It seeks to be ‘a city of short distances’. This involves three major strategies: restricting the use of cars in the city, providing effective transport alternatives to the car and regulating land-use to prevent sprawl. Two-thirds of Freiburg’s land area is devoted to green uses. Just 32 per cent is used for urban development, including all transportation. Forests take up 42 per cent, while 27 per cent of land is used for agriculture, recreation, water protection, etc.

As a result of the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986, Freiburg made the saving of resources the most vital factor for all future planning which included the clear prioritisation of public transport over individual traffic and goals to reduce energy consumption of buildings and realise future planning areas through self-financing schemes. The two major urban extensions Vauban and Rieselfeld were developed under these guidelines. Both developments have been built on brownfield sites – Vauban was on the site of a former military barracks and Rieselfeld on a sewage farm. Vauban is a neighbourhood of 5,500 inhabitants, located four km south of Freiburg town centre and is estimated to be one of the largest solar districts in Europe. All houses in Vauban are built to a low-energy consumption standard – maximum 65 kWh/m2/year (the average energy standard for new-build German houses is about 100 kWh/m2/year, 200 kWh/m2/year for older houses). Low-carbon technologies include heating from a combined heat and power station, solar collectors and photovoltaics. Self-build is used extensively in Rieselfeld, an urban extension for 12,500 people started in 1992. Direct mass transit links were created to the city centre. The current land-use plan for the city focuses on developing within the current city limits to optimise the existing infrastructure. Although the new concentration is on interior development, Freiburg’s population figures are still climbing and the number of jobs (mainly in the field of universities and of high-ranking scientific facilities) is also constantly increasing.

Freiburg’s success owes much to its democratic strength. Three key factors are direct citizen participation, dynamic planning, and consensus. Active democracy was the first step when citizens worked to oppose the planned nuclear power plant. This early activism has evolved so that citizens are directly involved in land-use planning, the city budget, technical expertise committees, developing public information on sustainability, and as shareholders in local renewable energy providers (e.g. solar, wind). The broad base of involved citizens is credited for Freiburg’s development of a consensus on sustainable development across the major stakeholders. This has enabled goals to be pursued steadily over decades.

Covering costs

The usual sources of income available to the city authorities have been used to deliver this work. The Vauban and Rieselfeld developments were built without any contribution from the city budget. The income received from selling the serviced plots of land to co-operatives, individuals and small builders covered the costs of the land and all the necessary physical and social infrastructure that the city provided.

WHA2013_GERMANY4

Impact

  • The standard of living in Freiburg is recognised as one of the highest in Germany, not only due to the natural climate and landscape advantages, but also to the active engagement of the citizens in decision making and sustainable city living.
  • The citizens of Freiburg have a well-developed understanding of environmental issues, which affects their lifestyle choices.
  • As a national exemplar of sustainable urban planning, ideas developed here have been used in countries around the world.
  • The project itself involves the development of local government planning policies, which have also been used in other cities. Freiburg is very well known throughout Germany for its sustainable approaches, which have influenced both regional and national governments. Germany now has some of the strongest environmental protection policies in Europe.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • Development of an integrated planning approach to develop an environmentally sustainable pattern of city living thirty years ago, before such approaches were widely recognised.
  • Encouragement of citizen engagement in the decision making for the city.
  • Recognition of the importance of an integrated mass transit system throughout the city in creating a ‘city of short distances’, enabling high levels of public transport use, cycling and walking.

 

What is the environmental impact?

Low-energy building is obligatory in the Vauban district; zero-energy and energy-plus building and the application of solar technology are standard. There are over 50 passive houses and at least 100 units with ‘plus energy’, which is estimated to be one of the largest ‘solar districts’ in Europe.

Freiburg is a centre for innovative sustainable energy generation – solar, wind, hydropower, co-generation and district energy. Extensive use of permeable ground surfaces, bio-swales (vegetated areas designed to attenuate and treat rainwater runoff) and green roofs helps save water. Property owners are charged a storm water fee according to the percentage of their land that is permeable.

The Freiburg Climate Protection Strategy 2030 provides a clear focus and wide-ranging framework for local action in key areas identified for effective GHG emissions reduction. The city’s focus is now on achieving the new target – a 40 per cent reduction by 2030 on the baseline year of 1992 – with the support of an action plan, a structure established to support the implementation process and engaging its citizens.

Vauban is virtually car-free with over 70 per cent of households not owning a car. Car owners have to purchase a parking space in a multi-storey car park on the outskirts of Vauban for US$23,350, plus a monthly service charge. Transportation planners make use of five mechanisms to encourage healthy and sustainable transportation modes – extension of the public transportation network; traffic restraint; channelling individual motorised vehicle traffic; parking space management; and promotion of cycling. Today there are 30km of tramway network, which is connected to 168km of city bus routes as well as to the regional railway system. Seventy per cent of the population lives within 500m of a tram stop.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

The stable political system, with a strong Green Party, is likely to ensure the continuity of funding sustainability in the city. The city takes a hard-headed commercial approach to development. Loans have to be repaid, grants are limited and only five per cent of the housing in Rieselfeld is funded by the municipality. Expenditure on roads is minimised, most of the streets are only four metres wide and limited to car use only. There is a betterment levy, with the city authorities taking one third of the increase in value on the sale of open land. Land for building is sold off in small plots (190 to 210m2) with limits on the number of plots any one group can buy, thus favouring small builders and co-operative groups. In Vauban, less than 30 per cent of the land area was built up by large developers, 70 per cent of the plots were sold to small builders and co-operatives, resulting in 175 different building projects.

Homes are reasonably affordable in the city, reflecting partly the German housing market with its low rate of house-price inflation. There is a high proportion of affordable rental housing (80 per cent of stock). Co-operative building groups help to keep home ownership affordable with building costs much lower than buildings with similar quality bought ready from a development company.

The city is one of the wealthier cities in Germany and it has created a specialised service sector relating to renewable technologies. The university is a leading institution for renewable energy research, with many manufacturing off-shoots. A variety of small eco-focussed businesses and eco-tourism have emerged. For example, Genova, a private enterprise building co-operative is pursuing ecological concepts of solar installations for publicly co-financed housing.

 

What is the social impact?

WHA2013_GERMANY4Freiburg has long had an emphasis on citizen engagement. There are many opportunities for citizens to be engaged within their communities and in city-wide campaigns for environmental improvement. When the two new urban areas were developed local community forums were established which acted as joint place promoters, offering critical support to the city council and through its energy and activism, encouraging it to move forwards.

The new urban extensions in the city have a family friendly character, with the city’s emphasis on being a ‘city of short distances’. There are flourishing community centres where people can hold meetings, organise entertainment, have a meal etc. Community participation in the city’s Land Use Plan involved 19 working groups of technical officers and local communities.
In Vauban, the city used the principles of the community architecture movement, encouraging groups working together with their own architect to develop a block of buildings around a defined open space. In Rieselfeld there was a strong emphasis on self-build and the municipality provided serviced sites, enabling people to have homes costing up to 25 per cent less. Over 100 different builders were involved (20 per cent were co-operatives). Co-operative self-build improves the skills of those involved in a wide range of areas. Wide-scale development of eco-based industries has developed specialist skills in academia, services and manufacturing.

Emphasis on cycling and walking rather than car use, the availability of local produce and the development of close community networks all serve to improve the health and safety of local people. The car-lite living patterns, especially in Vauban and Rieselfeld, enable children to play safely outside of the home. The emphasis on social sustainability in all aspects of life has ensured a reduction in social inequalities. The housing development process has led to a wide range of designs and development and it is difficult to gauge people’s wealth from the outside of their house.

In 2008 the city of Freiburg used meetings as well as online discussions about participatory budgeting with the use of a budget simulator, enabling citizens to better assess the impacts of their choices. The results of this deliberative process were then collaboratively aggregated and edited by the participants of the process themselves.

 

Barriers

Initial resistance came in the early days from many of the city’s population, especially those who lived in the suburbs, who did not want to reduce their dependency on the car and wished to have out-of-town shopping facilities. There was also strong resistance coming from the developers who wished to have a free hand in the development of the city. Both were overcome by having a clear strategy for the development of the city and making this clear to developers and by convincing and inspiring the people that this was a good choice for the city through engagement in the discussion and decision-making process.

 

Lessons Learned

  • Implement controversial policies in stages, choosing projects that everyone agrees on first.
  • Keep plans flexible and adaptable over time to allow for changing conditions.
  • Policies should include both sticks and carrots to encourage people to change behaviour, i.e. making parking more expensive and difficult, but making public transport, cycling and walking much easier.
  • Organise land use and transportation on an integrated basis to ensure that travel distances can be kept short.
  • Involving the citizens should be an integral part of policy development and implementation.
  • Support from regional and national government is vital in helping local policies to work.
  • Long-term goals need to be pursued on a consistent basis.
  • City leaders have to be committed to long-term engagement, but always with the support and engagement of the people.
  • Be creative and tactical in working with a wide range of different investors and other actors.
  • Be proud of the achievements and celebrate them with the citizens.
  • Continuity is vital.

 

Evaluation

Active monitoring is carried out across a range of city activities to ensure that the Freiburg Climate Protection Strategy 2030 is on target to achieve the planned GHG emission reductions of 40 per cent by 2030 on the baseline year of 1992.

 

Transfer

Freiburg has long been an exemplar par excellence for urban planners wishing to look for models of sustainable urban development. There is widespread media coverage of the pioneering work being done in Freiburg, as well as citation in academic literature. The city and its planning system have received many plaudits and awards over the last 30 years. Some more recent ones include the European City of the Year 2010 (Academy of Urbanism), the European Green Capital (Finalist 2009) and the Federal Capital for Climate Protection 2010.

The city has established the Freiburg Charter with a set of 12 principles to guide planning and development if a sustainable city is to be achieved. This is being widely discussed and used by planning authorities around the world, with many presentations and international congresses on the approach, as well as academic and professional visitors coming to learn directly how to establish a similar charter in their own situations and learn from its numerous good practice examples, including energy, transport, buildings and waste management.

Local towns and cities have adopted many of the examples set by Freiburg. Other German cities continue to learn from the experience at Freiburg, with both the planning professionals as well as city leaders seeking to develop similar approaches. The Freiburg model has spread to cities in neighbouring countries, including Mulhouse in France and Basel in Switzerland, as well as further afield. Freiburg is twinned with nine cities around the world and it continues to have close connections with them, providing support and planning guidance.

Links

Authors:

30 Years of Planning Continuity in Freiburg, Germany

0

30 Years of Planning Continuity in Freiburg, Germany

Mismatches New family structures
Policies and regulations Planning Participatory processes
Financing Public funding
Promotion and production Transformation and adaptation

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2013: Finalista

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Vogtei
Country/Region: Germany

Description

Continuity of an integrated planning approach over the last 30 years has led to the development of Freiburg as a leading exemplar of sustainable living in a compact car-lite city. Two urban extensions – Vauban and Rieselfeld – provide homes for 17,500 people and have been developed using low carbon technologies, self-build, and with excellent mass transit systems. The intention was to develop these districts to high environmental standards as well as ensuring that they had strong social structures and communities. A key success factor in Freiburg’s approach has been its focus on citizen participation and active democracy, enabling it to engage a wide range of stakeholders in its radical urban planning approach.

 

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

To create an environmentally and socially sustainable city through enlightened planning and pioneering use of renewable energy systems.

Context

Freiburg is an ancient university city with a population of 220,000 located in southern Germany near the Swiss and French borders. It is a rich city with a GDP per capita 11 per cent above the European average and has the highest concentration of sunshine in Germany, with more than 1,700 hours per year. Urban planning and development have always had a special impact on Freiburg. After the devastating destructions of the World War II and with 85 per cent of the inner city destroyed, the programmatic corner stones for Freiburg’s exemplary spatial and settlement development were laid out during the post-war years. The city was rebuilt from the 1950s onwards, taking note of traditional urban patterns and cultural heritage, but with a focus on sustainable development. In the 1960s, the crucial decision was made to hold on to the tram network as the backbone of urban development in Freiburg and consequently, to expand it accordingly. In addition to this, the “five fingers” concept was developed for the distribution of green spaces to clearly separate open zone from building zones. These elements – the tram as well as the division into green areas and building areas – are still the guiding aspects for Freiburg’s urban development today.

The Planning Department has long been a key department in the municipality and has always been progressive, introducing pedestrianisation, for example, in the city centre in 1949, and refusing to build shopping malls outside of the city. There is a stable political system, with the Green Party having dominance for the last decade. With up to 35 per cent of the overall city vote, the Green Party is the strongest in any major German city.

Key features

The process of sustainable city planning started in the 1970s when the citizens of Freiburg did not want to accept a planned nuclear power station. In 1986, with the nuclear catastrophe at Chernobyl fresh in their minds, Freiburg’s municipal council decided to have a future-oriented energy policy based on renewable resources wherever possible. This led to the development of Freiburg as a global first-rank model of sustainable urban life. It is a compact city development with car-lite systems.

Freiburg has a strong orientation to walking, bicycling, and public transport, with car-free areas and high levels of accessibility for people of all ages. It seeks to be ‘a city of short distances’. This involves three major strategies: restricting the use of cars in the city, providing effective transport alternatives to the car and regulating land-use to prevent sprawl. Two-thirds of Freiburg’s land area is devoted to green uses. Just 32 per cent is used for urban development, including all transportation. Forests take up 42 per cent, while 27 per cent of land is used for agriculture, recreation, water protection, etc.

As a result of the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986, Freiburg made the saving of resources the most vital factor for all future planning which included the clear prioritisation of public transport over individual traffic and goals to reduce energy consumption of buildings and realise future planning areas through self-financing schemes. The two major urban extensions Vauban and Rieselfeld were developed under these guidelines. Both developments have been built on brownfield sites – Vauban was on the site of a former military barracks and Rieselfeld on a sewage farm. Vauban is a neighbourhood of 5,500 inhabitants, located four km south of Freiburg town centre and is estimated to be one of the largest solar districts in Europe. All houses in Vauban are built to a low-energy consumption standard – maximum 65 kWh/m2/year (the average energy standard for new-build German houses is about 100 kWh/m2/year, 200 kWh/m2/year for older houses). Low-carbon technologies include heating from a combined heat and power station, solar collectors and photovoltaics. Self-build is used extensively in Rieselfeld, an urban extension for 12,500 people started in 1992. Direct mass transit links were created to the city centre. The current land-use plan for the city focuses on developing within the current city limits to optimise the existing infrastructure. Although the new concentration is on interior development, Freiburg’s population figures are still climbing and the number of jobs (mainly in the field of universities and of high-ranking scientific facilities) is also constantly increasing.

Freiburg’s success owes much to its democratic strength. Three key factors are direct citizen participation, dynamic planning, and consensus. Active democracy was the first step when citizens worked to oppose the planned nuclear power plant. This early activism has evolved so that citizens are directly involved in land-use planning, the city budget, technical expertise committees, developing public information on sustainability, and as shareholders in local renewable energy providers (e.g. solar, wind). The broad base of involved citizens is credited for Freiburg’s development of a consensus on sustainable development across the major stakeholders. This has enabled goals to be pursued steadily over decades.

Covering costs

The usual sources of income available to the city authorities have been used to deliver this work. The Vauban and Rieselfeld developments were built without any contribution from the city budget. The income received from selling the serviced plots of land to co-operatives, individuals and small builders covered the costs of the land and all the necessary physical and social infrastructure that the city provided.

WHA2013_GERMANY4

Impact

  • The standard of living in Freiburg is recognised as one of the highest in Germany, not only due to the natural climate and landscape advantages, but also to the active engagement of the citizens in decision making and sustainable city living.
  • The citizens of Freiburg have a well-developed understanding of environmental issues, which affects their lifestyle choices.
  • As a national exemplar of sustainable urban planning, ideas developed here have been used in countries around the world.
  • The project itself involves the development of local government planning policies, which have also been used in other cities. Freiburg is very well known throughout Germany for its sustainable approaches, which have influenced both regional and national governments. Germany now has some of the strongest environmental protection policies in Europe.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • Development of an integrated planning approach to develop an environmentally sustainable pattern of city living thirty years ago, before such approaches were widely recognised.
  • Encouragement of citizen engagement in the decision making for the city.
  • Recognition of the importance of an integrated mass transit system throughout the city in creating a ‘city of short distances’, enabling high levels of public transport use, cycling and walking.

 

What is the environmental impact?

Low-energy building is obligatory in the Vauban district; zero-energy and energy-plus building and the application of solar technology are standard. There are over 50 passive houses and at least 100 units with ‘plus energy’, which is estimated to be one of the largest ‘solar districts’ in Europe.

Freiburg is a centre for innovative sustainable energy generation – solar, wind, hydropower, co-generation and district energy. Extensive use of permeable ground surfaces, bio-swales (vegetated areas designed to attenuate and treat rainwater runoff) and green roofs helps save water. Property owners are charged a storm water fee according to the percentage of their land that is permeable.

The Freiburg Climate Protection Strategy 2030 provides a clear focus and wide-ranging framework for local action in key areas identified for effective GHG emissions reduction. The city’s focus is now on achieving the new target – a 40 per cent reduction by 2030 on the baseline year of 1992 – with the support of an action plan, a structure established to support the implementation process and engaging its citizens.

Vauban is virtually car-free with over 70 per cent of households not owning a car. Car owners have to purchase a parking space in a multi-storey car park on the outskirts of Vauban for US$23,350, plus a monthly service charge. Transportation planners make use of five mechanisms to encourage healthy and sustainable transportation modes – extension of the public transportation network; traffic restraint; channelling individual motorised vehicle traffic; parking space management; and promotion of cycling. Today there are 30km of tramway network, which is connected to 168km of city bus routes as well as to the regional railway system. Seventy per cent of the population lives within 500m of a tram stop.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

The stable political system, with a strong Green Party, is likely to ensure the continuity of funding sustainability in the city. The city takes a hard-headed commercial approach to development. Loans have to be repaid, grants are limited and only five per cent of the housing in Rieselfeld is funded by the municipality. Expenditure on roads is minimised, most of the streets are only four metres wide and limited to car use only. There is a betterment levy, with the city authorities taking one third of the increase in value on the sale of open land. Land for building is sold off in small plots (190 to 210m2) with limits on the number of plots any one group can buy, thus favouring small builders and co-operative groups. In Vauban, less than 30 per cent of the land area was built up by large developers, 70 per cent of the plots were sold to small builders and co-operatives, resulting in 175 different building projects.

Homes are reasonably affordable in the city, reflecting partly the German housing market with its low rate of house-price inflation. There is a high proportion of affordable rental housing (80 per cent of stock). Co-operative building groups help to keep home ownership affordable with building costs much lower than buildings with similar quality bought ready from a development company.

The city is one of the wealthier cities in Germany and it has created a specialised service sector relating to renewable technologies. The university is a leading institution for renewable energy research, with many manufacturing off-shoots. A variety of small eco-focussed businesses and eco-tourism have emerged. For example, Genova, a private enterprise building co-operative is pursuing ecological concepts of solar installations for publicly co-financed housing.

 

What is the social impact?

WHA2013_GERMANY4Freiburg has long had an emphasis on citizen engagement. There are many opportunities for citizens to be engaged within their communities and in city-wide campaigns for environmental improvement. When the two new urban areas were developed local community forums were established which acted as joint place promoters, offering critical support to the city council and through its energy and activism, encouraging it to move forwards.

The new urban extensions in the city have a family friendly character, with the city’s emphasis on being a ‘city of short distances’. There are flourishing community centres where people can hold meetings, organise entertainment, have a meal etc. Community participation in the city’s Land Use Plan involved 19 working groups of technical officers and local communities.
In Vauban, the city used the principles of the community architecture movement, encouraging groups working together with their own architect to develop a block of buildings around a defined open space. In Rieselfeld there was a strong emphasis on self-build and the municipality provided serviced sites, enabling people to have homes costing up to 25 per cent less. Over 100 different builders were involved (20 per cent were co-operatives). Co-operative self-build improves the skills of those involved in a wide range of areas. Wide-scale development of eco-based industries has developed specialist skills in academia, services and manufacturing.

Emphasis on cycling and walking rather than car use, the availability of local produce and the development of close community networks all serve to improve the health and safety of local people. The car-lite living patterns, especially in Vauban and Rieselfeld, enable children to play safely outside of the home. The emphasis on social sustainability in all aspects of life has ensured a reduction in social inequalities. The housing development process has led to a wide range of designs and development and it is difficult to gauge people’s wealth from the outside of their house.

In 2008 the city of Freiburg used meetings as well as online discussions about participatory budgeting with the use of a budget simulator, enabling citizens to better assess the impacts of their choices. The results of this deliberative process were then collaboratively aggregated and edited by the participants of the process themselves.

 

Barriers

Initial resistance came in the early days from many of the city’s population, especially those who lived in the suburbs, who did not want to reduce their dependency on the car and wished to have out-of-town shopping facilities. There was also strong resistance coming from the developers who wished to have a free hand in the development of the city. Both were overcome by having a clear strategy for the development of the city and making this clear to developers and by convincing and inspiring the people that this was a good choice for the city through engagement in the discussion and decision-making process.

 

Lessons Learned

  • Implement controversial policies in stages, choosing projects that everyone agrees on first.
  • Keep plans flexible and adaptable over time to allow for changing conditions.
  • Policies should include both sticks and carrots to encourage people to change behaviour, i.e. making parking more expensive and difficult, but making public transport, cycling and walking much easier.
  • Organise land use and transportation on an integrated basis to ensure that travel distances can be kept short.
  • Involving the citizens should be an integral part of policy development and implementation.
  • Support from regional and national government is vital in helping local policies to work.
  • Long-term goals need to be pursued on a consistent basis.
  • City leaders have to be committed to long-term engagement, but always with the support and engagement of the people.
  • Be creative and tactical in working with a wide range of different investors and other actors.
  • Be proud of the achievements and celebrate them with the citizens.
  • Continuity is vital.

 

Evaluation

Active monitoring is carried out across a range of city activities to ensure that the Freiburg Climate Protection Strategy 2030 is on target to achieve the planned GHG emission reductions of 40 per cent by 2030 on the baseline year of 1992.

 

Transfer

Freiburg has long been an exemplar par excellence for urban planners wishing to look for models of sustainable urban development. There is widespread media coverage of the pioneering work being done in Freiburg, as well as citation in academic literature. The city and its planning system have received many plaudits and awards over the last 30 years. Some more recent ones include the European City of the Year 2010 (Academy of Urbanism), the European Green Capital (Finalist 2009) and the Federal Capital for Climate Protection 2010.

The city has established the Freiburg Charter with a set of 12 principles to guide planning and development if a sustainable city is to be achieved. This is being widely discussed and used by planning authorities around the world, with many presentations and international congresses on the approach, as well as academic and professional visitors coming to learn directly how to establish a similar charter in their own situations and learn from its numerous good practice examples, including energy, transport, buildings and waste management.

Local towns and cities have adopted many of the examples set by Freiburg. Other German cities continue to learn from the experience at Freiburg, with both the planning professionals as well as city leaders seeking to develop similar approaches. The Freiburg model has spread to cities in neighbouring countries, including Mulhouse in France and Basel in Switzerland, as well as further afield. Freiburg is twinned with nine cities around the world and it continues to have close connections with them, providing support and planning guidance.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Centre for Secure Housing of Vienna – securing tenancies and preventing evictions

0

Centre for Secure Housing of Vienna – securing tenancies and preventing evictions

Policies and regulations

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 1996:

Stakeholders

  • Fachstelle für Wohnungssicherung

Location

City: Vienna
Country/Region: Austria, Vienna

Description

There are many agencies, both public and civil society, designed to supervise the private rental sector and improve the tenant security. In Vienna, to prevent evictions and ensure fair tenancy procedures, the Centre for Secure Housing (Fachstelle für Wohnungssicherung – FAWOS) was established in 1996 to provide rapid, efficient help to persons facing eviction. It is an agency of the Department of Social Affairs, Social and Health Law of the city of Vienna.

Links

Authors:

REGENERACIÓN URBANA DE UN BARRIO COMPLETO DE MADRID

0

REGENERACIÓN URBANA DE UN BARRIO COMPLETO DE MADRID

Main objectives of the project

Se trata de un caso de regeneración urbana integral, es decir, en el cual se aúna la rehabilitación de las edificaciones con le regeneración de los espacios libres degradados para reactivar la actividad en el barrio, mejorando la afección y vinculación al mismo de sus habitantes.

Date

Stakeholders

Location

City: Madrid
Country/Region: Madrid, Spain

Description

El barrio del Aeropuerto, en el Distrito de Barajas, se trata de un barrio donde conviven diferentes usos, predominando en un 60% del residencial, con manzanas ocupadas por edificios de tipología de bloque abierto, de tres o cinco alturas con amplias zonas ajardinadas; mientras que para el sector terciario existen superficies destinadas a equipamientos y al sector servicios modernos edificios destinados a uso de oficinas o el sector hotelero, además de naves industriales.

Se construye en los años 60, en base a un anteproyecto redactado en 1958 por el arquitecto D. Luis Martínez Lebrato y amparado por el Plan de Urgencia Social de Madrid en el año 1957 que permitía la construcción en todo el ámbito del Plan General con la condición de efectuar una cesión del 35% del suelo. El área ocupa una superficie de 5,7 Ha., tiene una población aproximada de 1.500 habitantes (con una densidad media de 263 hab/ha.) y se caracteriza por ser un área homogénea en cuanto a tipologías edificatorias y sistemas constructivos. El conjunto está integrado por 34 bloques, con 567 viviendas.

En origen, era una barriada alejada del centro de Madrid donde el alcantarillado estaba incompleto en la mayoría de las calles y los residentes tenían que utilizar el arroyo de Rejas, que circulaba al descubierto, hasta que el Ayuntamiento lo enterró como consecuencia de unas riadas. El alumbrado público se instaló en 1969; las goteras y las grietas eran causa de desalojos de urgencia.

Authors: