POLYTECHNIC OF NAMIBIA

SCHOOL OF NATURARAL RESOURCES AND SPATIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND PROPERTY SCIENCES

Alternative Building Technology, A Comparative analysis of Building Costs between

Standard and Alternative Building Products for Low Cost Housing in Windhoek.

By

Immanuel K. Haikali

Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor
of Property Studies (Honours) at the Polytechnic of Namibia.

Supervisor
Amin Issa

January, 2015

i
 ABSTRACT

The Namibian housing sector is characterized primarily by limited financial support for the
low income groups as well as limited capacity to meet the demand for land and housing
development. Namibian building industry is continuously growing as the cost of land,
labour and building materials increase. The housing backlog in Namibia is not only the
result of the lack of funds, but also lack of serviced land, exorbitant house prices, lack of
government and local authorities commitment towards provision of human settlements.

The dream of owning a house particularly for low-income and middle-income families is
becoming a difficult reality. Hence, it has become a necessity to adopt cost effective,
innovative and environment-friendly housing technologies for the construction of houses
and buildings for enabling the common people to construct houses at affordable cost.

It is against the above mentioned grounds that this paper had sought to analyse the
building costs between standard and alternative building products for low cost housing by
the NHE and the other contracted development companies as outlined in the findings.
Secondly, to determine the durability of different alternative building material (wall and
roof) given our Namibian climatic condition and lastly, to improve the knowledge and raise
awareness on alternative building and construction methods for low-cost housing in
Namibia.

ii
 DECLARATION

I Immanuel K. Haikali hereby declare that the work contained in the thesis entitled
Alternative Building Technology; A Comparative analysis of Building Costs between
Standard and Alternative Building Products for Low Cost Housing in Windhoek is
my own original work and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it at
any University or other higher educational institution for the award of a degree.

Signature:.. Date:

iii
 RETENTION AND USE OF THESIS

I Immanuel K. Haikali being a candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Property Studies
(Honours) accept the requirements of the Polytechnic relating to the retention and use of
Bachelors thesis deposited in the Library.

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the Library
will be accessible for purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal
conditions established by the Librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of the
theses/mini-theses.

Signature:Date:

iv
 DEDICATION

This report is dedicated to my family, all Property Studies students and staff members. I
would also like to dedicate this report to all the low and medium income earners who are
still struggling to find decent accommodation to house their families. I trust that this report
will be a useful tool toward solving their housing needs.

Finally, a special appeal is made to help NHE provide affordable and quality housing to the
needy Namibians by exploring and testing different alternative building methods in order to
cater for the low income earners of our society.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to the following people who contributed immensely
and made this study a success.

Mr. Amin Issa: - Project Supervisor, Polytechnic of Namibia, for his advice,
encouragement, selfless support and guidance. Without him this study would not have
been a reality.

Mr. SK Hayford: - Project Coordinator, Polytechnic of Namibia, for directing the whole
process of the study and specifically for his coordination of the project/ study.

The Division of Technical Services & Property Management at National Housing

Enterprise (NHE) for wonderful contribution and helping with information on the housing
projects.

My heartfelt thanks go to almighty father for making everything possible.

Lastly, but not least, thanks to all the Heads of development companies that have taken
part in this study i.e. WML Global, ASLA Construction, Vela Building Solution, Safland
Property Group and 435 Developments.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ................................................................................................................................. ii
Declaration ............................................................................................................................ iii
Retention and use of thesis .................................................................................................. iv
Dedication ............................................................................................................................. v
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... ix
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... x
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ..................................................................................... xi
List of Appendices ............................................................................................................... xii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background Information .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Project Aims and Objectives ........................................................................................... 2
1.4 Research Questions ........................................................................................................ 3
1.5 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................. 3
1.6 Limitation of the Study ..................................................................................................... 4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................... 5

2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Alternative Building material and Construction technologies ........................................... 5
2.3 The Conventional material and Construction methods .................................................... 6
2.4 The Price of Low-cost Housing ....................................................................................... 7
2.5 The Built-together Programme (BTP) .............................................................................. 7
2.5.1 Urban/Rural Housing Sub-Programme ..................................................................... 8
2.5.2 Physical Design of Built-Together Houses ................................................................ 9
2.5.3 Quality of Material for BT Houses ............................................................................. 9
2.6 The SDFN and NHAG in Namibia ................................................................................. 10
2.6.1 Physical Design of SDFN Houses .......................................................................... 10
2.6.2 Quality of material for SDFN Houses ...................................................................... 11
2.6.2 Quality of material for SDFN Houses ...................................................................... 11
2.7 The RDP Housing Programme in South Africa .............................................................. 14
2.7.1 Social Housing Programme ..................................................................................... 14
2.7.2 Physical Design of RDP Houses ............................................................................. 14
2.7.3 Quality of Material and RDP Houses ...................................................................... 15

vii
 2.8 Summary and Conclusion ............................................................................................. 16

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 17

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 17
3.2 Description of the Study Area ........................................................................................ 17
3.3 Research Design ........................................................................................................... 18
3.4 Population ..................................................................................................................... 18
3.5 Sampling procedures .................................................................................................... 18
3.6 Research Instruments ................................................................................................... 19
3.7 Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................................... 19
3.8 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 19
3.9 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 19

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH FINDINGS ............................................ 20

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 20
4.2 Rate of Response ......................................................................................................... 20
4.3 Types of ABT Systems Offered ..................................................................................... 21
4.4 Suppliers of ABT materials/Products ............................................................................. 22
4.5 Average Construction Cost of Houses .......................................................................... 22
4.6 Cost Analysis ................................................................................................................ 23
4.7 Construction Finishes .................................................................................................... 25
4.8 Durability of ABT Products ............................................................................................ 25
4.9 Products Certification .................................................................................................... 26
4.10 Challenges Experienced by Developers ...................................................................... 26

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 28

5.1 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 28
5.1.1 The types of ABT products on offer ......................................................................... 28
5.1.2 Supply, manufacturing and availability of ABT materials/products .......................... 29
5.1.3 Average cost of standard and ABT products/houses .............................................. 29
5.1.4 Durability of ABT products/houses ........................................................................... 30
5.1.5 Certification/Approval of ABT products ................................................................... 31
5.1.6 Challenges experienced by ABT developers .......................................................... 31
5.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 32
5.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 33
6. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 34
7. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 36

viii
 List of Figures

Figure 1: Number of BT Houses ...................................................................................... 8

Figure 2: Built-together Houses ....................................................................................... 9

Figure 3: SDFN House .................................................................................................. 10

Figure 4: RDP House in Soweto .................................................................................... 13

Figure 5: Map of the Study Area .................................................................................... 16

Figure 6: Respondents to the Study .............................................................................. 20

Figure 7: Average cost of houses per sq. ...................................................................... 22

Figure 8: Total construction cost per house ................................................................... 23

Figure 9: Percentage of cost difference - gull ................................................................ 23

Figure 10: Percentage of cost difference core 6 ......................................................... 24

Figure 11: Construction finishes per house ................................................................... 25

ix
 List of Tables

Table 1: Mass Housing Construction Rates ................................................................... 13

Table2: ABT Systems .................................................................................................... 21

Table3: Suppliers of ABT Materials ............................................................................... 22

Table 4: Products Certification ....................................................................................... 26

x
 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

The abbreviations and technical terms here are used in this document.

ABT - Alternative Building Technology

ANC - African National Congress
ASA - Agreement South Africa
BIC - Built in Cupboard
BIS - Built in Stove
BT - Build Together
BTP - Build Together Programme
CoW - City of Windhoek
Core 6 - It is a low cost NHE house type
CBO - Community Based Organisation
CIS - Corrugated Iron Sheet
DBTP - Decentralized Build Together Program
GULL - It is a conventional NHE house type
HRDC - Habitat Research and Development Centre
IBR - Inverted Box Rib
MRLGHRD - Ministry of Regional & Local Government, Housing & Rural
Development
NHBRC - National Home Builders Registration Council
NHAG - Namibia Housing Action Group
NHE - National Housing Enterprise
NGO - Non-Governmental Organisation
NMA - Namibian Manufacturers Association
RDP - Reconstruction Development Programme
SABS - South African Bureau of Standards
SASFA - Southern African Light Steel Frame Building Association
SDFN - Shack Dwellers Federation of Namibia
SDI - Shack Dwellers International
TIPEEG - Targeted Intervention Program on Employment and Economic Growth
UNDP - United Nations Development Programme

xi
 List of Appendices

Appendix I: Research questionnaire .......................................................................... 36

Appendix II: Pictures of ABT houses in Goreangab .................................................... 39

Appendix III: Products Certification/Approval and Agreement Certificates .................. 45

xii
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Information

Immediately after Namibia became independent, the government identified housing

as one of its four priority areas of development, along with health, education and
agriculture. This commitment of the government led to the formulation of a National
Housing Policy in 1991.

The central goal of the policy is "to make resources available for the development of
infrastructure and facilities so that every Namibian family will be given a fair
opportunity to acquire land with water, energy and a waste disposal system, and to
facilitate access to shelter in suitable locations at a cost and standard which is
affordable to the family on the one hand and to the nation on the other hand."

Therefore, the provision of housing on an affordable and sustainable basis for all the
people of Namibia is not only imperative but also fundamental to the socio-political
stability of the country. The obstacles to the provision of adequate housing were
thoroughly analysed which resulted in the creation of the National Housing Enterprise
(NHE) in response to the housing development objectives stipulated in the Namibian
National Development Framework, Vision 2030 and its own strategic objectives.

Currently, about (70%) of the Namibian population do not have access and afford
conventional home loan facilities offered by the financial market, nor can they access
urban freehold land and professional services due to poverty and limited disposable
income (National Housing Policy, 2009). A publication by the Bank of Namibia in
September 2011 indicates that housing backlog in 2007 was 80 000 units, and this
grew by 3 000 units every year. Thus it is estimated that the housing backlog as at
2011 stood at 92 000 units (Ntwala et al., 2011).

The Government has stipulated clear objectives related to housing provision in Vision
2030, in National Development Plan III and in Targeted Intervention Program on
Employment and Economic Growth (TIPEEG) which strategic objectives, the National
Housing Enterprise (NHE) is required to meet within the given timeframe.

1
The NHE whose vision is Affordable housing for every Namibian by 2030, was
established by an Act of Parliament (Act 15 of 1993) with a mission to provide and
finance affordable housing to low and medium income households as well as
facilitating the partnering of stakeholders in the development of infrastructure,
housing construction and financing.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The Namibian housing sector is characterized primarily by limited financial support

for the low income groups as well as limited capacity to meet the demand for land
and housing development. The NHE recognizes the need for a more comprehensive
and integrated development approach in order to address the impediments to the
development of affordable housing in Namibia.

With the above recognition, the Namibian building industry is continuously growing as
the cost of land, labour and building materials increase. The dream of owning a
house particularly for low-income and middle-income families has become a difficult
reality. Hence, it has become necessary to adopt cost effective, innovative and
environment-friendly housing technologies for the construction of houses and
buildings for enabling the common people to construct houses at affordable cost
(Tam, 2011).

1.3 Project Aim and Objectives

The overall aim of this study was to analyse the building costs for low cost housing
between standard and alternative building materials in Namibia with specific focus in
Windhoeks Goreangab area where different alternative technology building materials
have been tested.

Specific project objectives were;

1) To determine the difference in cost between standard and alternative building

technology products on the identified projects.

2) To determine the durability of different alternative building materials/products

(walls and roofs) given our Namibian climate condition.

2
 3) To identify challenges faced by development companies in implementing
alternative building technology for low cost housing and recommend the way
forward.

1.4.1 Research Questions

1.4.1 What types of alternative building technology systems are in the market?

1.4.2 What is the average cost per square meter of different alternative building
technology systems?

1.4.3 How durable is the different alternative building technology systems?

1.4.4 What are the challenges faced by the innovators of alternative building
technology products?

1.5 Significance of the Study

In order to address the aforesaid dilemma, the government had requested the NHE
to look into alternative building technology with the aim of providing more affordable
houses at a fast pace as opposed to the provision of housing using conventional
methods and material, which mostly takes a minimum of three months to complete.

The NHE had contracted about 10 companies to put up show houses in the
Goreangab area of Windhoek as part of its 'Alternative Building Technology Village'.
The initiative has started in June 2013 following approval of the building plans by the
City of Windhoek and 15 houses were to be constructed in the Ermina and Tolla
streets of Goreangab area.

Different alternative buildings materials have been used to construct these houses
which include duracasa system, modular panels, bet Crete, hydra form and light steel
frame houses as partial replacement of brick and mortar by incorporating low cost
construction techniques.

NHE had allocated two plots to each company in order to erect two show houses
based on NHE standard plans. The aim was to provide cheaper housing and to
compare the two technologies, adding that NHE is taking speed into consideration
seeing that the houses may be built much faster than the conventional brick houses
(Kaumbi, 2013).

3
It is against the above mentioned grounds that this paper had sought to analyse the
building costs between standard and alternative building products for low cost
housing by the NHE and the contracted 10 development companies as outlined in
the findings.

1.6 Limitation of the Study

The study was likely to face many challenges which affect the outcomes and the
findings of the study. The findings from this study only apply to the NHE and the
companies that have taken part in this study.

Firstly, the study could not cover all the 10 companies as mentioned earlier, but has
only covered five (5) companies that were able to erect alternative technology show
houses at the time of the study.

Secondly, the study was limited in its data collection and analysis since the other five
(5) companies were not in financial position to be able to erect show houses at their
own costs as per their agreement with NHE. These companies were than excluded
from the study since the researcher could not establish the real cost of their
alternative building technology material/products.

Thirdly, the study could not properly achieve the durability of material objective
mostly on walls and super structures since they require at least 12 to 24 months as
the building starts settling. It was my wish to achieve the best out of this study
though; there were challenges with regard real cost of alternative building
material/products, limited time frame and lack of mobility to enable the researcher
conduct the study at all envisaged companies.

4
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Low cost housing technologies aim to cut down construction cost by using
alternatives to the conventional building methods and inputs. It is about the usage of
local and indigenous building materials, local skills, energy saver and environment-
friendly options.

According to Miles (2000), low-cost housing can be considered affordable for low-
and middle-income households if they are able to secure a housing unit for an
amount up to 30% of its household income. In other countries such as India, only
20% of the population are high-income earners, who are able to afford standard
housing units. The low-income earners in developing countries such as Namibia are
generally poor and unable to access housing units in the housing market as low
income housing markets do rarely exist.

2.2 Alternative Building Material and Construction Technologies

Previous studies have found that cost-effective and alternative building technologies,
which apart from reducing construction cost by reducing the scope of work and bill of
quantities through an enhanced and advanced techniques, can play a major role in
providing better housing structures thereby protecting the environment.

There is huge misconception that low cost housing is suitable for only sub-standard
works and they are constructed by utilizing cheap building materials of low quality.
The fact is that Low cost housing is done by proper management of resources.
Economy is also achieved by postponing finishing works or implementing them in
phases (Civil Engineering Portal, 2008). It is worth to note that cost-effective building
technologies do not compromise with safety and security of the buildings and mostly
follow the prevailing building codes and relevant regulations. The detail procedures of
alternative construction methods are as follow:

Foundation: Arch foundation is used in which walls are supported on the brick,
concrete, pre-fab or modular masonry.

5
For the construction of foundations, the use of available material such as brick,
concrete blocks or other alternative material can be made to resist lateral forces
buttresses at the wall corners depending on the types of systems being used.

Walling: Modular system and or rat trap bond technology is used to bond the bricks,
blocks, concrete or panels together thereby avoiding the building to crack.

Some alternative material does not need plastering of the external and internal walls
as the walls are usually quite visually pleasing and air gaps created within the walls
help making the house thermally comfortable. In summer, the temperature inside the
house is usually at least 5 degrees lower that the outside temperature and vice versa
in winter.

Roofing: Different roof covers are normally used based on the principle that for roofs
which are simply supported, the upper part of the slab is subjected to compressive
forces and the lower part of the slab experience tensile forces. Concrete is very good
in withstanding compressive forces and steel bears the load due to tensile forces.
Thus the low tensile region of the slab does not need any concrete except for holding
steel reinforcements together (Tam, 2011).

2.3 The Conventional Material and Construction Methods

Foundation: Foundation is the lowest part of the structure which is provided to

distribute loads to the soil thus providing base for the super-structure. Excavation
work is first carried out, and then earth-work is filled with available earth and ends
with watering and compaction in a 6 thick layer.

Cement concrete: Plain cement concrete is used to form a levelled surface on the
excavated soil. The volumetric concrete mix proportion of 1:4:8 (cement: sand:
aggregate), with a 6 thick layer for masonry foundation and column footings is used.
Plain cement concrete is finished on the excavated soil strata and mixed by manual
process.

Wall construction: Size brick masonry for foundation is constructed for external walls
and super bricks masonry of a 9 inch for main walls and a 4 inch for all internal
walls. A 7 Mpa super bricks are used for the construction.

6
Plastering: Cement and plaster is used for the external and internal walls. Joints and
holes are raked before plastering and proper curing is ensured.

Roofing: SABS approved timber trusses and purlins are used for roof construction.
Property nailed together and fixed onto the wall ends with hoop irons. Roof is then
covered with Corrugated Iron Sheets (CIS) or Inverted Box Rib (IBR).

Painting and finishing: Before the painting process, walls are prepared with polly-filler
and primer and SABS approved paint is used.

2.4 The Price of Low-cost Housing

Low-cost housing is a comparative concept, which seeks to reduce construction cost

through applicable use of local material, innovative skills and technology, but without
foregoing the performance and structural integrity of the building structures (Tiwari et
al., 1999). One need to note that low cost housing is not a house, which is
constructed with cheap building material of inferior value, but a house that is
designed and constructed as any other house in relation to the foundation, super
structure as well as the strength of the building structure.

The reduction in cost can be achieved through effective utilization of locally available
building material and techniques that are durable, economical, accepted by users
and not requiring costly maintenance (Miles, 2000). Low-cost can also be achieved
by reducing the scope of work such as finishing and or executing low-cost housing
technologies in stages. Quality of workmanship may help minimize waste in design
and as a result good construction management practices can also be achieved.

2.5 The Build Together Programme in Namibia (BTP)

The Build Together Programme is a self-help programme that was introduced by

Government through the Ministry of Regional and Local Government, Housing and
Rural Development (MRLGHRD) to cater for the low and ultra-low income earners of
Namibia. This programme was implemented between 1992 and 1993, in both urban
and rural areas. The programme forms part of an umbrella body of four (4) sub-
programmes namely, urban/ rural housing loans sub-programme, social housing sub-
programme, single quarters transformation sub-programme and informal settlement
upgrading sub-programme, and has been implemented countrywide (UNDP, 1995).
7
With the invention of the decentralization policy, housing was among the identified
functions for decentralization through delegation to regional councils and local
authorities. The programme was then decentralized to these sub-national levels
between 1998 and 1999. The governments role was thus to facilitate the provision of
funds and technical support to these authorities and to monitor the sustainable
implementation of the programme.

2.5.1 Urban/ Rural Housing Loans Sub-Programme

This Build Together programme provides housing loans to low income people with
monthly income not exceeding N$3,000.00 per month. It also assists low and middle
income people who do not have access to credit from financial institutions and or
who do not have collateral. The NHE has been mandated to provide housing to low
and middle income households with a combined income from N$ 3,500.00 N$
20,000.00 per month.

While NHE can only provide housing finance of up to N$ 500,000.00 at an interest

rate of prime 1%, the maximum loan amount the BTP could provide for a 40m2
house was N$ 40 000.00 and the interest rate varies between 4 and 7 per cent over
20 years (Auditor Generals Report, 1999). Since its initiation in 1992 to 1999 the
Ministry had allocated funds for the construction of build together houses countrywide
as follows:

Figure 1: Number of BT Houses

Source: Auditor Generals Report, 1999

8
2.5.2 The Cost and Design of BT Houses

According to UNDP report, the cost of building material tends to be low because of
the use of locally available materials, which are manufactured on site. In most cases
only cement and labour that have cost components. Building sand and water at some
sites are provided for free as they are plenty. Cost cutting has also been achieved by
selection of more effective materials as well as by the design of the building
structures, the report said. The BT houses were generally designed two-bedroom
houses with CIS roof sheeting on timber purlins. The design is either a mono-pitch or
a simple gable roof type, see the figure below.

Figure 2: BT Houses

Source: MRLGHRD, 1999

2.5.3 Durability of Material for BT Houses

These houses were constructed using locally manufactured materials i.e. cement
blocks and are mostly manufactured on site. Since the materials were regarded as
low cost and only used in villages and informal settlements they did not require
testing in terms of their strengths. It has been like that until the Habitat Research and
Development Centre (HRDC), a joint venture between NHE, City of Windhoek and
MRLGHRD has been established.

The main aim of the HRDC is to research and document alternative building
materials for the construction of low cost houses in Namibia. One of its objectives is
also to help CBOs to set up brick making projects in order to help create
employment and alleviate poverty within their communities.

9
Since the inception of HRDC the centre has been engaged in the research and
training of community members in different regions on the manufacturing and
construction of low-cost houses using alternative building methods, HRDC activity
report, 2005. The report further said various experiments and tests were carried out
with various combinations of materials to determine the most suitable for building.
This is to ensure quality of building structures and the structural integrity of the
buildings.

2.6 The SDFN & NHAG in Namibia

The SDFN is a network of housing saving schemes, aimed at improving the living
conditions of low-income people living in shacks, rented rooms and those without
accommodation, while promoting women's participation. The SDFN is affiliated to
Shack Dwellers International (SDI) and is supported by NHAG through foreign
donors and other NGOs. According to SDFN/NHAG 2009/2010 annual report, the
federation has a network of 605 saving groups with more than 20 400 members
throughout the country. The community savings have been used to secure land, and
to leverage additional government contributions, enabling the groups to build over
3488 low cost houses and secured land for roughly 6230 families, the report says.

SDFNs aim and objectives is to improve the lives of the poor by securing affordable
land and shelter and improving the living conditions of those excluded from
commercial housing and financial processes, using a community-driven approach.

2.6.1 The Cost and Design of SDFN Houses

The report further indicated that 3488 houses have been completed by the SDFN
members themselves. Members usually build two room houses, comprising of 34m 2
at a cost of nearly N$ 705/m2. They also install their own water and sewer reticulation
when allocated blocks of land. The development is done incrementally, depending on
the households affordability.

10
Figure 3: SDFN House

Source: SDFN, 2010

Saving groups with secure tenure plan their own layouts, while NHAG staff prepare
the drawings and submit them to local authority for approval. The members of the
saving groups form building teams who obtain the prices for materials from local
building suppliers and manage the building process themselves. The saving groups
negotiate with local builders to assist with the construction.

2.6.2 Durability of Material for SDFN Houses

Most saving groups members manufacture their own hollow building blocks at the
sites. The NHAG staff trains group members during the manufacturing of blocks and
construction of houses, and provide technical support to the projects i.e. supervision
of the construction to ensure quality of workmanship.

The SDFN through its members had constructed Otjomuise community centre with
hydra form blocks. With the support of the Zambians, about 152 group members
have learned about this alternative building method while participating in the
construction of the centre. Other 15 group members obtained skills in blocks
manufacturing and can also do dry wall construction. Two communities in other
regions prepared to build their houses using hydra form blocks.

11
Even though SDFN houses are constructed with low cost building materials, there
have never been complaints of defective materials or poor workmanship reported as
the beneficiaries take charge of the construction themselves. This shows how cost
effective the alternative building materials can be, given the willingness by the
communities to support and use the alternative building products.

The SDFN annual report reiterated on the community participation, learning and
exchange with the aim of gaining skills on the use of alternative building technology
for low cost housing. The report further concluded that low cost housing can only be
achieved through the adoption of alternative building technology, the use of locally
manufactured building materials with locally obtained skills.

2.6.3 The Mass Housing Programme in Namibia

The Mass Housing Development Program (MHDP) is a government programme,

which was initiated by His Excellency, Dr Hifikepunye Pohamba, President of the
Republic of Namibia. President Pohamba officially launched the MHDP on 26
November 2013. The purpose of mass housing programme is to address the
shortage of housing and the bottlenecks that are being experienced in different parts
of the country.

According to the blueprint on mass housing development, the programme targets the
middle, low and ultra-low income groups in terms of providing access to land and
housing. It is divided into various sub-programmes, such as the credit-linked housing
that targets middle income groups, as well as the social or subsidized housing that
caters for low- and ultra-low income groups. This component is aimed at fulfilling
another important objective, namely the upgrading of informal settlements, with the
goal of phasing-out shacks from urban and peri-urban areas.

According to the progress report on mass housing programme, the NHE has been
given the responsibility to implement the mass housing programme by constructing
185 000 houses countrywide over the next 17 years, before the end of 2030. The
project which NHE manages aims to address the Social / Subsidized Housing sub
program and also targets ultra-low income earners who were catered for by the Built
Together Project. The Build Together project and the Shack Dwellers Project have
now been synchronized and merged with NHE.

12
In order to make substantively address the housing backlog in the country,
Government will provide subsidies for the purchase of specific categories of houses,
with a view towards affordability. Subsidies will be provided for categories of houses
such as D1, Core 5, Core 6, and Core 7. For D1 and Core 5 categories, the subsidy
amounts to 60 per cent of the cost of the house, while for Core 6 and Core 7
categories, the subsidy amounts to 50 per cent of the cost of the house. This is to
ensure that the houses remain affordable to the people.

Table 1: Mass Housing Construction Rates per sq.

Source: National Housing Enterprise, July 2014

13
The table above summarises the cost of different house types under the mass
housing programme. The houses differ in sizes and range from low-cost to medium
cost houses all with standard finishes. The table reveals that the national average
cost of mass housing units is in the range of +- N$ 5 400.00, a cost which most low-
income earners cannot afford hence the subsidy and social housing component.

2.7 The RDP Housing Programme in South Africa

The RDP is a South African socio-economic policy framework implemented by the

ANC led government in 1994 after months of engagements between the ANC, its
Alliance partners the Congress of South African Trade Unions and the South African
Communist Party and civil society organisations (Greyling, 2009).

The main focus in the execution of RDP was to address the socio-economic
problems that existed due the previous white minority rule. This programme was
aimed at providing low cost housing to the South African poor citizens who earns a
combined income of R3500 or less. Greyling further explained that RDP projects
were generally done on the outskirts of the cities where large undeveloped land is
available at a fairly good price. The only down side to this was that residents have to
travel long distances to get to work.

2.7.1 Social Housing Programme

The South African government did not only focus on the provision of RDP housing,
but it also strives to provide other forms of housing. Social housing is an initiative that
was introduced to focus on low to middle income individuals. It is a rental co-
operative housing option in designated restructuring zones. This proposal is not
entirely run by the government but only assisted by the government. It usually
involves an accredited social housing institution managing the project, but
government provided grants. Other forms of endowment can come from the private
sector or equity form the developer (Anonymous, Human Settlements, 2009).

2.7.2 The Cost and Design of RDP Houses

The first low cost housing projects were generally a two room brickwork structure with
corrugated iron roof sheeting. The first RDP houses were only 16m. When the
NHBRC was introduced, regulations were put into place and the houses had to be

14
extended. These houses were extended with an extra room which increased the floor
area to 36m (SAPA, 2008). An alternative to this design has been prefabricated
housing or also something more environmentally friendly. More consideration was
put on sustainable development or green building.

Figure 4: RDP housing in Soweto

Five roomed
houses

Two roomed
houses

Source: Wikipedia, 2014

Over the years the design of the houses improved a lot. It now consist of a five room
brickwork structure with either corrugated iron roof sheeting or clay roof tiles. It has
lights and people have the option to also buy a geyser for hot water (Greyling, 2009).
The RDPs aim was not only to construct new low cost houses, but it also involved
the upgrading of existing buildings. This is a relatively cheap option, because the
super-structure of the building already exists but, the cost depends on the types of
material used and condition of the building.

2.7.3 Durability of Materials for RDP Houses

In constructing RDP houses, different materials have been used such as moladi,
hydra forms standard bricks. It is more economical to build houses based on locally
available material. When government constructed the first RDP houses they did not
use recycled material and attention was put on quantity at the lowest cost rather than
quality, but in the more recent projects more attention was given to the use of
sustainability of the developments by using materials from the local environment and
also to involve the local community in the projects.

15
According to the Civil Engineering Portal, latest trends in low cost housing, building
material cost tends to be less because of the use of locally available materials and
required labour cost due to proper time schedule of work. Cost of reduction is
achieved by selection of more efficient material or by an improved design.

Many of the RDP housing provided before 1997 did not comply with the National
Home Builders Registration Council (NHBRC), because the NHBRC was only
introduced after 1997. Inspections done by the department of housing found that
these structures were not up to standard. It was revealed that many houses have
contraction problems such as loose and/or leaking roofs, doors and windows not
properly fitted; visible cracks and poor sanitation.

It was also observed that government-subsidised houses in Vukani and Grahams

town were falling apart, as a result of poor workmanship and inferior quality. Weak
bricks, leaking water pipes, roofs, drains and toilets were some of the problems
encountered in the houses (Kota, 2010). The department of housing had instructed to
rebuild many of these houses due to its poor condition. This decision had upset many
of the poor South Africans who have been waiting for houses for many years.

2.8 Summary and Conclusion

There is enough evidence in the reviewed literature to conclude that alternative

building technology can be an answer in the provision of low-cost housing for the low
and middle income groups. A related development has also been observed in
Windhoek as delivery of low-cost housing remains a matter of distress, despite the
NHE`s efforts to provide affordable and quality housing to the nation through the
mass housing programme.

Most researchers have agreed that low-cost housing can be achieved through the
adoption of alternative building technology, the use of the locally available and
environmentally friendly materials, improved design, proper planning and good
management practices. Labour cost can also be reduced by properly making the time
schedule of the work.

16
 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This section has described the study area, research design and methodology,
population, sampling procedures, data collection procedures, data analysis and
ethical considerations.

3.2 Description of the Study Area

The study was conducted in Goreangab, an outskirt township of Windhoeks Katutura

suburbs. The township is located in the northwest of Windhoek, and is adjacent to
Wanaheda Township. The site is further flanked by another informal settlement,
Greenwell Matongo C to the west and, Otjomuise Road to the south. Otjomuise Road
is an important public transport route, and is connecting the respective areas with
various parts of the City.

Figure 5: Map of study area: Goreangab

Source: GeoViewer - CoW

The area is further located at approximately 10km from the city center. A plan
depicting the location of the area in relation with other parts of the City is attached.

17
The area in general has a smooth slope in access of 1: 7.5. 50% of site has a slope
of 1:10 and flatter. The site to the west is characterized by informal housing in terms
of the Citys current building regulations and consists mostly of corrugated iron and
other second hand materials.

The study was based on comparing the building costs for low cost housing between
traditional and alternative technology building material/products. The area has been
selected for this study due to the fact that this is the area where NHE has decided to
establish an alternative technology village, where the alternative technology show
houses were built. Goreangab is also the area where most houses have been
constructed with different alternative building material/products.

3.3 Research Design

Research methodology is the overall approach to the research process from the
theoretical foundation, collection and analysis of the data (Collis and Hussey, 2003).
This study has adopted both qualitative and quantitative research methodology to
afford the researcher to seek and explore diverse alternative building
material/products, human skills, views and subjective positions (Bryman, 1988). The
said methodology has also allowed the researcher to remain open to adopting inquiry
as understanding of the subject matter deepens.

3.4 Population

The population of the study has been made up of project managers and or contract
administrators from the NHE and the five construction companies contracted by NHE
to put up alternative technology show houses.

3.5 Sampling Procedures

The selected sampling for this study is purposive sampling. Purposive sampling
means selecting a sample based on knowledge of a population (Babbie, 2004). This
sampling is used primarily when there are a limited number of people that have
expertise in the area being researched such as alternative building technology. The
sample size had consisted of seven (7) participants in total of which two participants
have come from NHE and one participant each from the rest of the five (5)
development companies.
18
3.6 Research Instruments

The study has used non-structured interview and desk study as research instruments
to collect both primary and secondary data. The non-structured interview had
consisted of open ended questions that have been designed to meet part of the
research objectives. The desk study has been used to collect secondary data which
has produced part of the main study findings. The data was collected in form of
brochures, documents, bill of quantities as well as quotations.

3.7 Data Collection Procedures

A notice of the research study has been done through Business Development
Managers of specific companies and Project Manager at NHE of which approval to
collect data has been given. Specific times were then arranged between the
researcher and the participants for data collection and other information. Most of the
information such as brochures and leaflets has been received via emails.

3.8 Data Analysis

Data analysis has been done through the use of qualitative and quantitative data.
Microsoft excel has been used to run descriptive statistics in order to create clearer
interpretation from variables of the quantitative data and present the results.
Qualitative data has been analysed through observation in order to discover the
underlying meaning and patterns of traditional and alternative building technology
products.

3.9 Conclusion

The study, which was quantitative in nature, addressed the low-cost housing in terms
of cost between standard and alternative building technology products, durability of
the products and challenges experience in the introduction of such products.

The research questions were designed to be simply understood and to be answered

in minimal time in order to boost the response level. The questionnaire consisted of
mainly close-ended and open-ended questions. Open-ended questions were
included so that respondents could express and explain their point of views in order
to disclose matters not noted in the literature reviewed.

19
 CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the data analysis and research findings as obtained from the
collection of data through questionnaire. The data was collected and then
administered in reaction to the statement of the problem as well as the questions
posed in chapter 1 of the study.

The study was based on three major objectives. These objectives were to determine
the difference in cost between standard and alternative building products/materials
on the identified projects, to determine the durability of different alternative building
material given the Namibian climatic condition and to identify challenges faced by
development companies in implementing alternative building technology.

4.2 Rate of Response

The study involved the National Housing enterprise and the five low cost housing
development companies in Windhoek. These companies have recently built
alternative building technology show houses Goreangab, an outskirt township in
Katutura. The companies which participated in the study are shown on the figure
below.

Figure 6: Respondents to the Study

Respondents to the Study

120
100
80
60
40
20
Responses
0

Source: Own compilation through data analysis, Oct 2014

20
As it can be seen on the above figure, only six development companies have
responded to the study. This represents about 85% of the total population. Only 15%
of the total population did not respond to the study, citing that their prices can only be
determined once the show houses have been completed as they are still at the
foundation level.

4.3 Types of ABT Systems Offered

The ABT show houses developed by the above mentioned companies do not
necessarily consist of the same building materials. Different developers have used
different products of which most of them are imported from South Africa. The table
below summarise the types of different alternative building materials/products used in
the construction/erection of the show houses at Tolla Street in Goreangab.

Table 2: ABT Systems

MATERIAL NHE SAFLAND WML ASLA VELA BUILD 435 DEVELOP

Foundation Normal Normal Normal Normal Raft/Steel Normal
Plinth walls Super bricks Lightweight panels Light steel frames Timber panels Modular panels Timber panels
Plastering Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal
Roof construction Light steel Light steel Light steel frames Timber panels Light steel frames Timber trusses
Roof covering IBR IBR IBR IBR IBR Concrete
Floors Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal
Doors/Windows Steel Aluminium Steel/Alumi Aluminium Aluminium Steel/timber
Source: Own compilation through data analysis, Oct 2014

The above table shows that most of the building materials used in the construction of
the show houses in Goreangab are similar except for super structures of which all the
development companies have used different materials/products. All other materials
such as plumbing, sanitary, electrical, floor tiles, ceiling, painting and doors are
standard. Apart from all the development companies only NHE has used
conventional material for wall construction. Further analysis shall be drawn during
cost comparison.

21
4.4 Suppliers of ABT Materials/Products

Table 3: Suppliers of ABT Materials

MATERIALS NHE SAFLAND WML ASLA VELA BUILD 435 DEVELOP

Foundation Local Local Local Local Local Local
Walls Local Imported Local Imported Imported Imported
Plastering sand Local Local Local Local Local Local
Roof construction Local Local Local Imported Imported Imported
Roof covering Local Local Local Local Local Local
Floors Local Local Local Local Local Local
Doors/Windows Local Local Local Local Local Imported
Source: Own compilation through data analysis, Oct 2014

As it can be seen on the above table, about 50% of roofing material used in the
construction of the show houses is imported from outside while 80% of plinth walls
material is also imported. The rest of building materials are purchased locally.

4.5 Objective 1: Average Construction Cost of Houses

Figure 7: Average cost of houses per/sq.

Average Cost of Houses per/sqm

6,000.00
5,000.00
Cost per/sqm

4,000.00
3,000.00
2,000.00
1,000.00
-
NHE SAFLAND WML ASLA VELA 435
BUILD DEVELOP
Gull (sh) 64 sqm 4,760.00 5,170.00 3,968.00 5,796.00 5,828.00 3,488.00
Core 6 - 42 sqm 3,720.00 5,880.00 3,745.00 5,238.00 5,928.00 -

Source: Own compilation through data analysis, Oct 2014

The above figure summarizes the average cost per square meter of constructing the
two different houses types by different development companies. The figure shows
that a Gull house by 435 Development had only fetched N$ 3,488.00 per/sq. while
the same house type Vela Building had fetched around N$ 5,828.00. The Core 6 by
NHE costs about N$ 3,720.00 per/sq. far way below than what it had cost Vela
Building Solution.
22
Figure 8: Total construction cost per house

Construction Cost per House

450,000.00
400,000.00
Total cost per house

350,000.00
300,000.00
250,000.00
200,000.00
150,000.00 Gull (sh) 64 sqm
100,000.00 Core 6 - 42 sqm
50,000.00
-
NHE SAFLAND WML ASLA VELA 435
BUILD DEVELOP
Development Companies

Source: Own compilation through data analysis, Oct 2014

As it can be seen on the figure above, a gull house type by 435 Development only
cost about N$ 200 000.00 in comparison to Velas which cost over N$ 400 000.00 for
the same house. NHE and WML Global seem to be competitive as their cost for each
house type is relatively the same or close to each other.

4.6 Cost Analysis

Figure 9: % of cost difference - gull

Source: Own compilation through data analysis, Oct 2014

23
Figure 10: % of cost difference core 6

Source: Own compilation through data analysis, Oct 2014

Figure 9 and 10 above shows the % of cost difference between the two house types
by different development companies. It is evident that duracasa system by 435
Development is very cheap compared to other products by some developers followed
by WML and NHE respectively. ASLA and VELA Buildings products are the more
expensive ones with a maximum of 9% difference each.

It can also be seen on figure 10 where NHE and WMLs costs are at 9% less in cost
difference followed by ASLA and both by VELA and Safland with equal scores. 435
Development did not built a core 6 hence not reflected on the above figure.

24
4.7 Construction Finishes

Figure 11: Construction finishes per house

120.00 Types of Finishes per House

100.00
NHE
% of Finishes

80.00
SAFLAND
60.00
WML
40.00
ASLA
20.00 VELA BUILD
- 435 DEVELOP
Tiling Ceiling BIC's BIS's Gutters Geyser Burgler
Finishes

Source: Own compilation through data analysis, Oct 2014

The above figure evidently shows that most of the housing products by the said
development companies have standard finishes i.e. tiling, ceiling, and hot water
system except for core 6 by some companies. This is because core 6 is regarded as
a low cost housing therefore providing standard finishes would render it unaffordable
by many. None of the houses by any development company has been fitted with BIS.

4.8 Objective 2: Durability of ABT Products

In general, the durability of a building structure is dependent on the quality of material

used, the quality of workmanship and the climate condition as some material are
manufactured for specific whether conditions.

Most of the products by these development companies including those of NHE are
very durable as indicated in the products agreement certificates except for ASLA
Construction whose products durability cannot be confirmed as they did not provide
test or agreement certificate.

It is said that the strength and durability of the show houses by these development
companies may not be the same because they have been constructed with different
materials. The durability, thermal insulation of walls and fire resistance are all stated
in the test or agreement certificate of every building system, see appendix III.

25
4.9 Products Certification

All the products used by the above mentioned development companies have been
certified and approved by different authorities concerned with the manufacturing of
specific products.

Table 4: Products certification

BUILDING PRODUCTS SABS NHBRC ASA NMA SASFA
LEPA SYSTEM (SAFLAND) X X
DURACASA SYS (435 DEV) X X
LIGHT STEEL (WML) X X
MODULAR SYSTEM
(VELA BUILDING) X X
REINFORCED CONCRETE
(ASLA)
STD BRICKS (NHE) X X

Source: Own compilation through data analysis, Oct 2014

No proof of certification could be provided by ASLA with regard to their timber frame
product, therefore the researcher was also unable to determine or ascertain the
durability and strength of ASLA building system.

4.10 Objective 3: Challenges Experienced by Developers

All the development companies that have taken part in the study have indicated that
traditional or conventional building material i.e. brick and mortar has become
permanent into peoples minds, hence bringing alternative building technology
products in the place of conventional products may not well be received by many.
The following are the challenges experienced by the development companies during
the introduction and marketing of their new building systems;

Lack of government policy in support of alternative building technology

including local authorities.
Lack of awareness of the alternative building technology materials/products.
Fears of high construction and maintenance cost since most of the materials
for superstructure are imported.

26
 Fears that the new technologies may not be compatible with the Namibian
climate condition.
Commercial banks are still reluctant to finance alternative building technology
houses citing quality and structural integrity of the houses.
Local authorities not willing to avail land for alternative building technology
houses citing their building regulations doesnt provide for some technologies.

27
 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the discussion of the findings, conclusion and

recommendations. It also provides an overview of how the research questions were
answered in this study and extends to how individual research objectives were met.

5.1 Discussion

This study was very technical in nature as it focused more on specific issues of low-
cost housing and alternative building technology i.e. the cost of alternative
technology products and their durability. There have not been many studies
conducted on the same topic hence the findings of this study are more based and
derived from the primary data collection of this study.

5.1.1. The types of ABT products on offer

Most of the development companies that have responded indicated that they have
unique alternative building technology systems. These technologies are only mainly
for walls (super structures), roofing and foundations.

NHE uses the standard/conventional building system i.e. brick and mortar system
with standard roof covers such as IBR and CIS.

SAFLAND uses light weight panels alternative building system also known as
LEPA system for walls and light steel frames for roof construction.

WML Global uses light steel frames technology for both walls and roof construction.
This technology is said to be faster as a 42 sq. house can be completed in just two
weeks.

ASLA uses reinforced concrete panels technology for both super structures and
roof construction.

VELA Building uses modular panels technology for walls, raft/steel frames for
foundation and light steel frames for roof construction.

28
435 Development uses timber panels technology for walls and roof construction, a
system which is also known as duracasa system.

The study found that there are lots of alternative building technology products in the
market and one cannot conclude that certain product is superior over the other until
they all have been put on the ground as comparable.

5.1.2 Supply, manufacturing and availability of ABT materials/products

The study reveals that most of the alternative building technology systems referred to
in this study is being imported from South Africa where the manufacturing plants of
the materials are found. The study also found that half of the roofing materials are
also being imported.

The issue of importing building material versus manufacturing locally has been at the
centre of what drives the cost of low-cost houses. Latest trends in low cost housing
have indicated that the cost of building material tends to be less because of the use
of locally available materials. The SDFN annual report also concluded that low cost
housing can also be achieved through the use of locally manufactured building
materials with locally obtained skills.

5.1.3 Objective 1: Average cost of standard and ABT products/houses

The cost of different alternative building systems differs from one another; this has
been confirmed in Chapter 4 where a 42 sq. house cost different between the five
developers. The study has found that there is high cost of some ABT products as
opposed to conventional e.g. between N$ 5 238 N$ 5 928/m2 as opposed to N$ 3
720/m2. This high cost is mainly due to diverse variables such as the type of system,
place of manufacturing, transport, overheads and establishment costs. The said cost
per square meter excludes the cost of land.

The study also revealed that one of the major components that drives up the cost of
houses is the construction finishes such as tiling, ceiling, hot water system BICs and
many more. When a low-cost house is provided with standard fittings it become
unaffordable by some especially the core 6 house, which is classified as low-cost.

29
One of the respondents had indicated that in order to successfully deliver on low-cost
housing, a shift of mind set is needed. This can be done through adoption of the
alternative building technology, the use of locally available material, friendly
environment designs, and locally obtained skills and through public awareness
campaigns by responsible institutions such as NHE and HRDC. This has also been
complemented in Chapter 4 by SDFN annual report.

The study had strongly assessed the difference in cost between standard and ABT
material and concluded that, the reduction in cost of a house is not only attributed to
the new building technology, but also to other variables. This has been confirmed by
NHE products which are 2-9% less in cost as compared to most of the development
companies.

5.1.4 Objective 2: Durability of ABT products/houses

Although most of these products have passed through test and approval by different
test and authority bodies, it has remained difficult to ascertain the real strength and
durability of some of the products. Having said that, some of the products are being
tested for the first time in Namibia hence the strength and durability of the completed
products could only be ascertained say after one or two years when the building
starts settling and when all the house components starts functioning.

A recent visit to the houses by the researcher indicates that some show houses have
already started cracking and leaking. Some developers had pointed out that it might
be due to whether condition while NHE representative had indicated that it might be
due to poor workmanship.

The above version has also been supplemented by Kota in Chapter 2 where he
revealed that RDP houses in South Africa had started falling apart, as a result of poor
workmanship and inferior quality, weak bricks, leaking water pipes and visible cracks.

30
5.1.5 Certification/Approval of ABT products

Except for NHEs products which are locally manufactured, all the other development
companies products are only certified and approved in South Africa with only
duracasa system having been certified and approved by SABS, the standards body
which is also applicable in Namibia.

5.1.6 Objective 3: Challenges faced by the ABT development companies

Lack of government policy in support of ABT products the study has revealed that
although the government had passed the national housing policy years back its
implementation and the introduction of defined policy on alternative building
technology still remains a challenge. The programmes under this policy such as the
built-together and single quarters transformation targeted at low-income people did
not yield any good results and as a result they are no more functioning.

Lack of awareness of the ABT products the institutions being mandated by

government to research, document and educated the public on the new building
technologies are doing very little on this mandate hence the reluctance of people to
trust the use of ABT products in constructing low-cost houses.

Fears of high construction and maintenance cost the study has revealed that there
is still fear among the people with regard to high cost of building and the
maintenance of the same. This is because people have never been exposed to ABT
houses in their lives.

Fears that the technologies may not be compatible with the Namibian condition
the study have also found that most of these products have never been tested in
Namibia in order to determine their suitability of our climate condition.

Commercial banks are still reluctant to finance ABT houses citing quality and
structural integrity of the houses some respondents have indicated that
commercial banks are scared to finance the new technologies due to quality and
structural integrity of the products, which is unknown.

Local authorities not willing to avail land for ABT houses the local authority
building codes and regulations are said to be outdated or not accommodative of ABT
for low-cost housing.

31
5.2 Conclusion

The overall aim of this study was to analyse the building costs for low cost housing
between standard and ABT materials in Namibia with specific focus in Windhoeks
Goreangab area where different ABT products have been tested. The core objectives
of this study were to determine the difference in cost between standard and ABT
materials on the identified projects, determine the durability of different ABT materials
given the Namibian climate condition and to identify challenges faced by
development companies during the introduction of ABT products.

The study has found that there is high cost of some ABT products as opposed to
conventional e.g. between N$ 5 238 N$ 5 928/m2 as opposed to N$ 3 720/m2. This
high cost is mainly due to diverse variables such as the type of system, place of
manufacturing, transport, overheads and establishment costs. The said cost per
square meter excludes the cost of land.

Several authors have indicated the importance and the role of what ABT products
can play in the provision of low-cost housing. The study revealed that one of the
major components that drives up the cost of houses is the construction finishes such
as tiling, ceiling, hot water system BICs and many more. When a low-cost house is
provided with standard fittings it become unaffordable by some especially the core 6
house, which is classified as low-cost.

Although most of these products have passed through test and approval by different
test and authority bodies, it still remains difficult to ascertain the real strength and
durability of some of the products. The study also concluded that some of the ABT
products are being tested for the first time hence the strength and durability of these
products could only be ascertained once the building starts settling.

32
5.3 Recommendations

In view of the above analysis, findings and conclusion, the following

recommendations have been made:-

The study has found that most of the ABT products mentioned earlier in the study are
more costly than the conventional products. It is therefore recommended that the
institutions responsible for promoting ABT such as NHE select alternative
technologies and systems that are cost effective and sustainable in the Namibian
context. In selecting the aforesaid technologies, the institutions should also consider
life-cycle costs i.e. maintenance cost of the buildings and energy efficiency.

Policy issues: the government and institutions that have been mandated to promote
and implement ABT policies must revise and formulate new policy on ABT that reflect
the current situations. It is also recommended that the same institutions establish
partnerships with professional bodies to help in ensuring quality and durability of
building structures and develop capacity in project supervision.

The institutions should also mobilize other organizations such as Namibia Standards
Institutions (NSI), the institute of Architects, engineering council and others, to
support local authorities in drafting ABT policies for incorporation into their building
codes and regulations.

It is further recommended that HRDC and NHE embark on consumer education in

order to educate the communities about new ABT in the market and ensure that
information about ABT is freely available to the recipients when they need it.

Innovators of ABT are recommended to properly market their new technologies, seek
approval/certification and financial supports well in advance for their systems in order
to avoid rejection by different stakeholders.

33
6. REFERENCES

Auditor Generals Report. (1999). Office of the Auditor General, Windhoek.

Anonymous. (2009). Human Settlements. Retrieved July 2014, from Breaking New
Ground in Housing Delivery:
http://www.housing.gov.za/Content/Housing%20Programmes/Programmes.htm

Babbie, E. (2004). The practice of social research. London: Thomson Wadsworth.

Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London: Unwin Heyman

Blueprint on Mass Housing Development Programme in Namibia. (2013). Ministry of

Regional Local Government, Housing and Rural Development, Windhoek.

Civil Engineering Portal. (2008, March). Low Cost Housing. Retrieved July 2014, from
Civil Engineering Portal: http://www.engineeringcivil.com/low-cost-housing.html

Collis J. & Hussey, R. (2003). Business research: A practical guide for

undergraduate and postgraduate students. Hound mills, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Greyling, C. (2009). The RDP Housing System in South Africa. Pretoria: School of
Engineering and the Built Environment, University of Pretoria.

Miles ME (2000). Real estate development, principles and processes, Washington

D.C., Urban Land Institute.

Namibia National Housing Policy. (2009). Ministry of Regional Local Government,

Housing and Rural Development, Windhoek.

Ntwala , M., Fillipus, H., & Fleermuys, F. (2011). Evaluating the Namibian Housing
Market: Opportunities and Constraints. Paper prepared for the Bank of Namibia
Housing Symposium, 29 September 2011. Windhoek.

SAPA. (2008). Hundreds of RDP houses in Ekurhuleni to be revamped.

Johannesburg: Mail and Guardian.

SDFN/NHAGs Annual Report. (2009/2010). Windhoek.

Struwig, F. W., & Stead, G. B. (2001). Planning, designing and reporting research.
Cape Town: Hanli Venter.

Tam, W. V. (2011). Cost Effectiveness of using Low Cost Housing Technologies in

Construction. Sydney: School of Engineering, University of Western Sydney.

34
Tiwari P, Parikh K & Parikh J (1999). Structural design considerations in house
builder construction model: A multi objective optimization technique, Journal of
Infrastructure System.

Kaumbi, U. (2013, July 09). NHE Looks At Alternative Housing. The Southern Times.
Retrieved from http://www.namibiansun.com/local-news

Kota, A. (2010). Why we protest. Johannesburg: Mail and Guardian.

UNDP Evaluation Report on the Build Together Programme -1995.

Wickell, J. (2008). How Modular Homes and Manufactured Homes Differ. Retrieved
July 2014, from Home buying/selling:
http://homebuying.about.com/cs/modulareducation/a/modularhomes.htm

35
7. APPENDICES

7.1 Research Questionnaire

POLYTECHNIC OF NAMIBIA

RESEARCH QUESTIONNARE

Student Name: Haikali IK St #: 200100493

Email: haikalii@gmail.com Cell: 081 128 8825
Supervisor: Mr. A. Issa

RESEARCH TOPIC: ALTERNATIVE BUILDING TECHNOLOGY; A COMPARATIVE

ANALYSIS OF BUILDING COSTS BETWEEN STANDARD AND ALTERNATIVE
BUILDING PRODUCTS FOR LOW COST HOUSING IN WINDHOEK.

I Haikali IK herein called the Researcher has embarked on the above mentioned
research study. This study seeks to analyse the building costs between standard and
alternative building technology products for low cost housing in Windhoek by the
NHE and other low cost housing development companies.

Since your company is engaged in the construction of low cost housing in Windhoek,
I thought you could be the best participant and source of information required for this
study. So, please help the researcher and find time to complete this questionnaire as
soon as you can. The information you provide will be surely used for this study and
academic purposes only, and will be kept in strict confidence.

Thank you,

Haikali IK

Researcher

36
Name of the Firm:

Respondent: .

Position:

1) What type of alternative building technology products does your company

offer?

2) Is your ABT material/products manufactured locally or outside the country? If

no, why.

2) Are your ABT material/products available in the market, if yes in what

quantities?

4) What is the average cost per square meter of your complete product?

5) What is included in the price of a complete product/house in terms of finishes?

6) How is the durability of your products/houses in terms of quality?

7) Has your system been approved/certified by any recognised quality standards

body? If yes, please provide details.

37
8) What challenges your company has experienced in the implementation of
alternative building technology products?

Thank you very much for your time..

38
Appendix II: Pictures of ABT houses in Goreangab

Reinforced concrete Frames

ASLA Sunrises interpretation of The NHE House Type GULL

39
ASLA Sunrises Interpretation of NHE House Type CORE 6

LIGHT STEEL FRAME CONSTRUCTION

40
WML Globals Interpretation of NHE House Type CORE 6

WML Globals interpretation of NHE House Type GULL

LIGHT STEEL FRAME CONSTRUCTION

41
Vela Building interpretation of NHE House Type CORE 6

Vela Building interpretation of NHE House Type GULL

42
TIMBER STUD FRAME CONSTRUCTION

435 Developments interpretation of NHE House Type GULL

SAFLAND Groups Core 6 as at end of May 2014

43
Safland Groups: Gull in

44