Back to Case Library

York's Duncombe Square Housing: Towards Affordability, Sustainability, and Healthier Living

Created on 26-06-2024 | Updated on 17-10-2024

Duncombe Square, a housing project in the City of York, is a key part of the council's housing delivery programme initiated after the declaration of climate emergency in March 2019. Michael Jones, the head of housing delivery and asset management, notes that the programme addresses the high demand for homes, tackles social isolation, climate change, and supports community health.  

 

According to the Passivhaus trust, Duncombe Square is Yorkshire's biggest affordable housing project. The residences were designed to promote healthy and low-carbon living. Providing warm and well-ventilated indoors is expected to lower risks of excess cold and mould accumulation. Those risks represent significant health hazards in British dwellings. Additionally, features like air-source heat pumps and PV panels are expected to reduce energy use and bills by approximately 70%, achieving zero-carbon in-use and affordable running costs for residents.

 

The project offers 60% of its 34 homes as affordable housing options, split between social rent and shared ownership. It includes a range of housing, from 1-bedroom flats to 4-bedroom family houses. The development also features well-designed outdoor spaces and a communal green area.

 

Duncombe Square, designed by Mikhail Riches, a Stirling Prize-winning architect, exemplifies the council's housing delivery programme. Additionally, community input via multiple consultations was vital in shaping the project brief.  The project has garnered multiple accolades, including the Housing Design Awards and Planning Awards 2022, showcasing how modern design can enhance local architecture and community wellbeing. The council hopes this project will inspire other local councils and housing developers in the UK to create healthy, beautiful, and inclusive environments.

Architect(s)
Mikhail Riches

Location
York, UK

Project (year)
2020

Construction (year)
2022 - 2024

Housing type
Terraced housing

Urban context
City center

Construction system
Off-site timber frame construction

Status
Built

Description

 

Strengthening Construction Quality and Knowledge Sharing

The City of York's procurement strategy for the Duncombe Square project, as well as other housing sites across the city, focused on two key objectives: ensuring high-quality construction and facilitating knowledge exchange about sustainable building practices. These objectives exemplify the council's commitment to its housing delivery programme.

To achieve housing quality, the council engaged a multidisciplinary design team led by the esteemed architect Mikhail Riches, known for his work on Norwich Goldsmith Street and association with the Passivhaus Trust. This team was supported by RICS-accredited project managers, clerks of work, and valuers to uphold stringent standards.

The project used two complementary approaches to improve the construction and delivery of large-scale Passivhaus projects in the UK. The first approach involved training to advance sustainable construction skills for existing staff, new hires, and students aged 14 to 19, led by the main contractor, Caddick Construction (Passivhaus Trust, 2022). The second approach is sharing knowledge with a broader audience by organising multiple tours during the different construction phases. These tours were designed for developers, architects, researchers, and housing professionals. They showcased Duncombe Square as an open case study, allowing industry peers to learn from and engage directly with project and site managers, reinforcing the project's role as a model for York’s Housing Delivery Programme.

 

Duncombe Square Housing Design

The design principles of the Duncombe Square project aim to integrate functionality and encourage healthy and sustainable lifestyles. The principles embody the essence of Passivhaus design while ensuring aesthetic appeal. It features low-rise, high-density terraced housing to optimise land use and foster a sense of community. The terraces are strategically positioned close together to maximise solar gain during the winter hours of sunlight, ensuring compliance with the rigorous Passivhaus standards while accommodating a maximum number of residences. The design ensures that each home benefits from natural light and heat while aligning with the Passivhaus energy efficiency and ventilation principles.

The facade design and colour scheme connect with the local architectural identity of traditional Victorian terraces, with a modern twist that cares for indoor environmental quality. It features high ceilings, thick insulated walls, and a fully airtight construction. The design incorporates traditional materials such as brick, enhanced by modern touches of render and timber shingles that blend harmoniously with the local surroundings.

The site plan design reflects a neighbourhood concept that extends beyond the energy-efficient and modern appearance of the houses. Duncombe is designed as a child-friendly neighbourhood, prioritising walking and cycling with dedicated cycle parking for each home. Vehicle parking and circulation are situated along the site's perimeter, ensuring paths are exclusively for pedestrians and play areas. Additionally, shared 'ginnels' provide bike access, enhancing mobility and creating safe play areas for children. This emphasis on pedestrian access enhances community interaction and outdoor activities. The thoughtful landscaping incorporates generous green open spaces at the development's core, complemented by communal growing beds and private planters. These features are intended to be aesthetically pleasing while also encouraging community engagement.

 

A Construction Adventure

For the main contractor, Caddick Construction, this project represents a distinctive adventure - from procurement to construction to Passivhaus standards - that deviates from traditional British construction practices. Recent UK housing developments often employ "Design and Build" contracts, where the contractor assumes primary responsibility for designing and constructing the project. However, the architects led the design process in this case, necessitating frequent collaborative meetings to discuss detailed execution plans.

During a site visit to the project site in York in September 2023, the contractor’s site manager explained the challenges of constructing and applying Passivhaus standards on a large scale. Unlike traditional construction, Passivhaus demands meticulous attention to detail to ensure robust airtightness of the building envelope. Moreover, building to these standards involves sending progress images to a Passivhaus certifier, who verifies that each construction step meets the rigorous criteria before approving further progress.  

The chosen construction method for this project is off-site timber frame construction combined with brick and roughcast render. Prefabricated timber frames mitigate risks for contractors and expedite the construction process. The homes' superstructure employs timber frame technology, ensuring durability and longevity.

A key priority in the construction process is preventing heat loss and moisture infiltration. This involves:

  1. Envelope Insulation: Airtightness is crucial for minimising heat loss. Therefore, the façade installation included airtight boards, tapes, membranes, timber frame insulation, and triple-glazed windows. Indoor airtightness is tested at least four times throughout the construction process to guarantee that residents will live in an airtight house.
  2. Foundation and Floor Insulation: Three layers of insulation between the floor finishing and foundation prevent heat loss, enhance thermal efficiency, and control moisture penetration, protecting against groundwater leakage.

 

Households’ Health and Wellbeing

Households' health and wellbeing are foundational pillars in the development of the Duncombe Square project. In addition to the robust energy efficiency benefits of Passivhaus standards, this initiative underscores high indoor air quality through Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (MVHR) units, which improve air quality and help mitigate issues like dampness and mould in airtight houses. To improve outdoor air quality, the design strategically reduces car usage by fostering a pedestrian-friendly environment with expansive green pathways that purify air and encourage outdoor activities. Amenities such as bike sheds with electric charging points and communal "cargo bikes" are also included.

Central to the project is a vibrant communal green space that facilitates relaxation, play, and social interactions—vital for mental and physical health. The scheme enhances residents' wellbeing by ensuring proximity to local amenities, promoting a healthier, more active lifestyle without reliance on vehicles. Extensive pedestrian and cycling paths, alongside wheelchair-friendly features, highlight the project's commitment to inclusivity and a healthy living environment. The design harmoniously integrates with local architecture and includes public amenity spaces that prioritise safe, child-friendly areas and places for social gatherings, fostering a strong community spirit.  

When compared with the framework for sustainable housing focusing on health and wellbeing developed by Prochorskaite et al., (2016), the Duncombe project excels in incorporating features such as energy efficiency, thermal comfort, indoor air quality, noise prevention, daylight availability, and moisture control. Moreover, it emphasises accessible, quality public green spaces, attractive external views, and facilities encouraging social interaction and environmentally sustainable behaviours. Its compact neighbourhood design, sustainable transportation solutions, proximity to amenities, consideration of environmentally friendly construction materials, and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions perfectly encapsulate the framework's objectives for providing sustainable housing focused on health and wellbeing.

 

Affordability

From a housing provider's perspective, the delivery team faced challenges in achieving a net-zero and Passivhaus standard that is affordable and scalable for large housing developments. For instance, construction costs are subject to pricing risks as contractors raise their prices amid market uncertainties, thereby increasing overall project expenses. Integrating Passivhaus principles is believed to have helped control these costs by simplifying building forms and reducing unnecessary complexities.

Residents' housing affordability is expected to be positively influenced by three key factors: tenure distribution, adherence to Passivhaus standards, and the development's central location. The tenure distribution includes 20% of units for social rent and 40% for shared ownership, offering affordable options for both renters and prospective homeowners. Passivhaus standards further reduce costs by lowering energy consumption through features like PV panels and energy-efficient air-source heat pumps, earning the development an A rating for energy performance and cutting utility bills for residents. Additionally, the central location decreases mobility-related expenses, with easy access to local amenities reducing the need for car use. Together, these factors help promote a sustainable lifestyle and lower overall living costs for residents. 

 

Sustainability: Environmental, Social, and Economic Lens

Environmental sustainability involves two key aspects: (1) reducing resource consumption and (2) minimising emissions during use (Andersen et al., 2020). Duncombe Square's initiatives to reduce resource consumption include:

  1. The dwelling's superstructure utilises low-carbon materials, such as FSC (Forest Steward Council) certified timber framing, which ensures it is sourced from sustainable forestry.
  2. Using recycled newspaper for insulation to minimise environmental impact.
  3. Monitoring the embodied energy of construction materials, including accounting for the energy used in their extraction, production, and transportation.
  4. Sourcing 70% of subcontractors and supplies within 30 miles of the site, as per Passivhaus Trust guidelines, to reduce emissions from long-distance transportation.

To minimise environmental impact during use, the project incorporates:

  1. Air-source heat pumps for heating and solar PV panels on roofs, enabling net-zero carbon energy usage.
  2. Water butts for collecting rainwater for gardening purposes.
  3. Permeable surfaces, rain gardens, and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) to reduce surface runoff in public areas.

Economic sustainability is at the forefront of providing affordable, energy-efficient dwellings that do not impose long-term financial burdens on residents. The project offers affordable dwellings in terms of housing costs, non-housing costs, and housing quality. It also contributes to the broader economy by promoting sustainable building practices and creating future jobs through on-site training programmes. Caddick Construction prioritises the local sourcing of subcontractors and suppliers within 30 miles of the site, thereby reducing transportation costs and supporting the local economy.

Social sustainability is integral to the project, featuring designs that promote community interaction and provide safe, accessible outdoor spaces. The development includes communal green spaces, such as plant-growing areas and a central green space for natural play, enhancing residents' quality of life. Prioritising pedestrian pathways and extensive cycle storage encourages a shift towards sustainable transport options, reducing reliance on cars and promoting healthier, more active lifestyles.

Alignment with project research areas

 

Design, Planning and Building

This project serves as an exemplary integration of design, planning, and construction, with a focus on promoting the health and wellbeing of future residents as well as environmental sustainability through conscious, sustainable approaches:

Design: The design prioritises the health and wellbeing of households by incorporating Passivhaus principles and selecting sustainable materials with aesthetic appeal. Blending with the local architectural identity, it features low-rise, high-density terraced housing that incorporates traditional materials like brick alongside modern touches such as render and timber shingles.

Construction: The construction deviates from the typical Design and Build procurement approach, with the architect leading the design process and working closely with the contractor throughout execution. The focus is on airtightness, energy efficiency, and indoor air quality to meet Passivhaus standards, requiring precise installations and multiple tests. Additionally, off-site timber frame construction is used for the main building structure as a sustainable choice.

Planning: The site’s planning emphasises a child-friendly, pedestrian-focused neighbourhood, prioritising walking and cycling. Vehicle parking is placed along the perimeter, with dedicated cycle parking for each home. The development’s core features generous green spaces, communal growing plots, and private planters to encourage outdoor activities, community interaction, and engagement.

 

Community participation

The project demonstrates a commitment to community participation articulated in various forms:

Consultation on design brief: The project's development involved consultations with local residents and Clifton Green Primary School students to ensure integration with the existing community. Their active participation through drop-in events, workshops, and an online consultation during the COVID-19 lockdown in Autumn 2020. These consultations aligned the project’s design brief with community needs and expectations.

Living with others: The development design aims to foster strong community ties and sustainable living. Though not yet occupied, the design aimed to create a neighbourly atmosphere by encouraging reduced car use and prioritising cycling infrastructure, including dedicated paths and cycle parking. Features like communal food-growing areas, planting spaces, and child-friendly zones are intended to encourage social interaction and support sustainable lifestyles once residents move in. 

Contribution to a broader community: The project is committed to developing sustainable construction skills (Passivhaus Trust, 2022) and knowledge-sharing (Passivhaus Trust, 2023). Caddick Construction provides staff, new hires, and students with sustainable construction training. The City of York Council collaborates with local institutions like York College and Job Centre Plus to support broader workforce development and build "Green Skills" within the supply chain. Knowledge-sharing activities involve site visits, presenting the project as an open case study that allows different stakeholders to engage with ongoing development that adopts sustainable construction techniques and Passivhaus standards. These efforts aim to create job opportunities and inspire other stakeholders to replicate similar projects across the UK, benefiting people and the environment beyond this development.

 

Finance and policy

The Duncombe Square project is financially structured through a collaboration with Homes England and local funding sources. Homes England's support has enabled additional funding through the Affordable Homes Programme, complementing other financial contributions, which include right-to-buy receipts and market sales. To ensure economic sustainability, 60% of the homes are allocated for affordable options, comprising 20% for social rent and 40% for shared ownership—exceeding local planning requirements—while the remaining 40% are sold on the open market. This market revenue helps subsidise the affordable housing component.

The project's total cost is 14 million GBP, with expenditures broken down as follows: land costs 2 million GBP, construction costs 10 million GBP, and additional on-costs amount to 2 million GBP. This financial model allows the City of York Council to maintain a self-sustaining development strategy despite limited government funding, ensuring the project remains feasible and continues to provide affordable housing options.

Design, planning and building

Community participation

Policy and financing

* This diagram is for illustrative purposes only based on the author’s interpretation of the above case study

Alignment with SDGs

The Duncombe Square development is aligned with the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): 

GOAL 3: Good Health and Well-being - The project’s design and construction prioritize the health and well-being of residents, reflecting a genuine commitment to improving their quality of life.

GOAL 4: Quality Education - By encouraging education on sustainable construction, the council supports the development of practical skills for future generations. Additionally, using Duncombe Square as an open case study through site visits, offers housing stakeholders an educational opportunity to explore and ask questions.

GOAL 7: Affordable and Clean Energy - The project is expected to achieve both by adhering to stringent Passivhaus standards, which ensure energy efficiency and cost savings.

GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure – The project showcases innovation by overcoming challenges in constructing 34 homes to Passivhaus standards. It aims to encourage infrastructure development that supplies the advanced systems required for this standard on a larger scale and for the long term in the UK. 

GOAL 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities – Duncombe Square serves as an example of sustainable housing, from the choice of construction materials to landscape design, fostering sustainable, healthy and active lifestyles that engage the community.

GOAL 12: Responsible Consumption and Production – This goal is demonstrated through the use of recycled insulation materials, air-source heat pumps, solar PV panels, and rainwater collection systems for gardening.

GOAL 13: Climate Action – The project supports climate action by promoting low-carbon living through features like air-source heat pumps, solar PV panels, and timber-based structures, all of which help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

References

Andersen, C. E., Ohms, P., Rasmussen, F. N., Birgisdóttir, H., Birkved, M., Hauschild, M., & Ryberg, M. (2020). Assessment of absolute environmental sustainability in the built environment. Building and Environment, 171(October 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106633

City of York Council. (n.d.). Housing delivery programme. Retrieved May 20, 2024, from https://www.york.gov.uk/housing/housing-delivery-programme-1/3

Housing Design Awards. (n.d.). Duncombe Barracks and Burnholme. Retrieved May 20, 2024, from https://hdawards.org/scheme/duncombe-barracks-and-burnholme/   

Prochorskaite, A., Couch, C., Malys, N., & Maliene, V. (2016). Housing Stakeholder Preferences for the “Soft” Features of Sustainable and Healthy Housing Design in the UK. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13010111

Passivhaus Trust. (2022, August 4). City of York Council housing delivery programme. Retrieved May 15, 2024, from https://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/news/detail/?nId=1120

Passivhaus Trust. (2023, August 18). Site visit: Duncombe Square Passivhaus Tour. Retrieved September 9, 2024, from https://passivhaustrust.org.uk/event_detail.php?eId=1200

Shape Homes York. (n.d.). Duncombe Barracks and Burnholme. Retrieved May 20, 2024, from https://www.shapehomesyork.com/development/2

Jones, M. (2022, April 22). Green homes aim to set international example. Property Journal. Retrieved May 28, 2024, from https://ww3.rics.org/uk/en/journals/property-journal/green-homes-aim-to-set-international-example.html

More Reading

Wainwright, O. (2020, October 4). Everest zero carbon: Inside York's green home revolution. *The Guardian*. Retrieved May 20, 2024, from https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/oct/04/everest-zero-carbon-inside-yorks-green-home-revolution

Related vocabulary

Financial Wellbeing

Housing Affordability

Measuring Housing Affordability

Participatory Approaches

Social Sustainability

Sustainability

Area: Design, planning and building

Financial wellbeing is an emerging concept with valyrious definitions, many of which focus on the financial capabilities of individuals. A household's financial wellbeing encompasses its capacity to comfortably meet current and ongoing financial responsibilities, fostering a sense of security about future obligations while enjoying the ability to make life choices (Aubrey et al., 2022). Riitsalu et al. (2023) describe it as "feeling good about one's personal financial situation and being able to afford a desirable lifestyle both now and in the future" (p.2). Brüggen et al. (2017:229) frame it as "the perception of being able to sustain current and anticipated desired living standards and financial freedom." This perception highlights the robust link of financial wellbeing influencing human wellbeing, which is a combination of "feeling good and functioning well" (Ruggeri et al., 2020:1). Other terminologies are used interchangeably to describe financial wellbeing, including financial health, financial resilience, and financial freedom (Riitsalu et al., 2023).     In the UK, the public health sector cares to raise awareness of financial wellbeing due to its impact on households' health and populations' productivity. On their official website page on Financial Wellbeing, they used the definition by The Money and Pension Service (Gov.UK, 2022: online) as follows:   "Feeling secure and in control of your finances, both now and in the future. It's knowing that you can pay the bills today, can deal with the unexpected, and are on track for a healthy financial future."   These explanations and the terminology used, including "afford" and "sustain," underscore the interconnections between financial wellbeing and the vital components of household life. These components encompass mental health, productivity, and pursuing economic sustainability in the present and future. Therefore, a household's financial wellbeing is pressured by various housing-related factors, including the costs of renting or buying and non-housing costs like utility bills and repairs, all of which can affect the household's income.   The issue of rising housing costs directly undermines financial wellbeing. This trend can be attributed to several factors, including increased construction costs, labour shortages, and rising material prices (Brysch & Czischke, 2021). Furthermore, there is a notable shortage in affordable and social housing supply (Emekci, 2021; Gov.UK, 2022). This scarcity is partly due to decreased public investment in new dwellings (Housing Europe, 2021; OECD, 2020). This issue further burdens low-income households who face high private rental costs and a gradual reduction in housing benefits (Tinson & Clair, 2020).   This issue also leads many households to cut back on essential needs. For instance, interviews with social housing residents in Scotland with low to modest incomes revealed a tendency to prioritize rent payments over other necessities, such as food and heating (Garnham et al., 2022). Similarly, Adabre and Chan (2019), , citing Salvi del Pero et al. (2016), warned that:   "Households who are overburdened by housing cost may cut back on other important needs such as health care and diet. Besides, in the medium term, households may trade-off costs for lower quality housing such as smaller size of rooms and housing in poorer locations which lack better access to education and other social amenities. The latter has often been cited as the cause of residential segregation."   Another financial burden is non-housing costs involving energy costs for heating (AHC, 2019; Stone et al., 2011). According to Lee et al. (2022), this issue persists, contributing to financial strain and even excess winter deaths in the UK. Poor housing quality raises energy bills (AHC, 2019; Lameira et al., 2022). It presents the risk of considering dwellings as affordable due to local authority support focusing on housing costs alone (Granath Hansson & Lundgren, 2019), regardless of its quality impacting energy bills (OECD, 2020). Social housing residents, particularly the ageing population and those living in poverty are at increased risk of fuel poverty (Tu et al., 2022). Fuel poverty occurs when more than 10% of a household's income goes towards energy consumption for heating (Howden-Chapman et al., 2012).   Looking forward, two factors could continue burdening households’ financial wellbeing. One factor is the fluctuating energy prices that are often increasing, such as the case in the UK (Bolton, 2024). Another factor is the impact of climate change, leading to colder winters and the potential for overheating, increasing energy demand during extreme weather conditions, as warned by the Committee of Climate Change in the UK (Holmes et al., 2019).   Non-housing costs associated with extensive housing repairs can also impact household financial wellbeing, which may arise from several factors. For instance, selecting low-quality construction materials, workforce or equipment to reduce construction costs might lead to increased repair costs over time (Emekci, 2021). Hopkin et al. (2017) highlighted a related issue in England, where new housing defects were believed to be partly attributed to the building industry's prioritization of profitability over customer satisfaction. Another factor could be improper periodic maintenance, potentially accelerating the physical deterioration of the dwelling (Kwon et al., 2020). Additionally, dwellings may fall into disrepair due to unresponsive maintenance services from housing providers, and residents may lack the financial means to cover repair costs themselves (Garnham et al., 2022).     Financial wellbeing is closely tied to household income. Low-income households are particularly vulnerable to being burdened by rising housing costs (Housing Europe, 2021; OECD, 2020), leading to financial insecurity (Hick et al., 2022). In addition, they might suffer housing deprivation due to the increasing housing and non-housing expenses coupled with their declining incomes (Emekci, 2021; Wilson & Barton, 2018). The financial pressure due to low income is further exacerbated if a household member has a disability or severe illness, potentially consuming up to 35% of their income (AHC, 2019). Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic period highlighted households' financial wellbeing vulnerability to housing-related financial challenges (Brandily et al., 2020; Hick et al., 2022; National Housing Federation, 2020). During this period, job losses led to difficulties covering housing and non-housing costs, with a third of low-income social housing residents burdened by housing costs (OECD, 2020).   The issues discussed above on dwellings being of poor quality or unaffordable harm financial wellbeing, leading to residential segregation (Adabre & Chan, 2019; Salvi del Pero et al., 2016) as well as intensifying gaps of social injustice, health injustice, poverty, and fuel poverty (Barker, 2020; Garnham et al., 2022). Without addressing those housing-related issues, many households' financial wellbeing would remain vulnerable to economic insecurity even if they live in housing considered to be "affordable" in terms of rent-to-income ratio.

Created on 14-10-2024

Author: A.Elghandour (ESR4), K.Hadjri (Supervisor)

Read more ->

Area: Design, planning and building

Housing can be perceived as consisting of two inseparable components: the product and the process. The product refers to the building as a physical artefact, and the process encompasses the activities required to create and manage this artefact in the long term (Turner, 1972), as cited in (Brysch & Czischke, 2021). Affordability is understood as the capability to purchase and maintain something long-term while remaining convenient for the beneficiary's resources and needs (Bogdon & Can, 1997). Housing Affordability is commonly explained as the ratio between rent and household income (Hulchanski, 1995). However, Stone (2006, p.2) proposed a broader definition of housing affordability to associate it with households' social experience and financial stability as: "An expression of the social and material experiences of people, constituted as households, in relation to their individual housing situations", ….. "Affordability expresses the challenge each household faces in balancing the cost of its actual or potential housing, on the one hand, and its non-housing expenditures, on the other, within the constraints of its income." Housing costs signify initial and periodic payments such as rent or mortgages in the case of  homeowners, housing insurance, housing taxes, and so on. On the other hand, non-housing costs include utility charges resulting from household usage, such as energy and water, as well as schools, health, and transportation (AHC, 2019; Ezennia & Hoskara, 2019). Therefore, housing affordability needs to reflect the household's capability to balance current and future costs to afford a house while maintaining other basic expenses without experiencing any financial hardship (Ezennia & Hoskara, 2019). Two close terminologies to housing affordability are  “affordable housing” and “affordability of housing”. Affordable housing is frequently mentioned in government support schemes to refer to the housing crisis and associated financial hardship. In England, affordable housing is still concerned with its financial attainability, as stated in the UK Government's official glossaries: "Housing for sale or rent, for those whose needs are not met by the market (including housing that provides a subsidised route to home ownership and/or is for essential local workers)", while also complying with other themes that maintain the affordability of housing prices in terms of rent or homeownership (Department for Levelling Up Housing and Communities, 2019). The affordability of housing, on the other hand, refers to a broader focus on the affordability of the entire housing market, whereas housing affordability specifically refers to the ability of individuals or households to afford housing. In the literature, however, the term “affordability of housing” is frequently used interchangeably with “housing affordability,” despite their differences (Robinson et al., 2006). The "affordability of housing" concerns housing as a sector in a particular region, market or residential area. It can correlate affordability with population satisfaction, accommodation types and household compositions to alert local authorities of issues such as homelessness (Kneebone & Wilkins, 2016; Emma Mulliner et al., 2013; OECD, 2021). That is why the OECD defined it as "the capacity of a country to deliver good quality housing at an accessible price for all" (OECD, n.d.). Short-term and long-term affordability are two concepts for policymakers to perceive housing affordability holistically. Short-term affordability is "concerned with financial access to a dwelling based on out-of-pocket expenses", and long-term affordability is " about the costs attributed to housing consumption" (Haffner & Heylen, 2011, p.607). The costs of housing consumption, also known as user costs, do not pertain to the monthly utility bills paid by users, but rather to the cost associated with consuming the dwelling as a housing service  (Haffner & Heylen, 2011). “Housing quality” and “housing sustainability” are crucial aspects of housing affordability, broadening its scope beyond the narrow economic perspective within the housing sector. Housing affordability needs to consider "a standard for housing quality" and "a standard of reasonableness for the price of housing consumption in relation to income" (p. 609) (Haffner & Heylen, 2011). In addition, housing affordability requires an inclusive aggregation and a transdisciplinary perspective of sustainability concerning its economic, social, and environmental facets (Ezennia & Hoskara, 2019; Perera, 2017; Salama, 2011). Shared concerns extend across the domains of housing quality, sustainability, and affordability, exhibiting intricate interrelations among them that require examination. For instance, housing quality encompasses three levels of consideration: (1) the dwelling itself as a physically built environment, (2) the household attitudes and behaviours, and (3) the surroundings, encompassing the community, neighbourhood, region, nation, and extending to global circumstances (Keall et al., 2010). On the other hand, housing sustainability embraces the triad of economic, social, and environmental aspects. The shared problems among the three domains encompass critical aspects such as health and wellbeing, fuel poverty and costly long-term maintenance  proximity to workplaces and amenities, as well as the impact of climate. Health and wellbeing Inequalities in health and wellbeing pose a significant risk to social sustainability, mainly in conditions where affordable dwellings are of poor quality. In contrast, such conditions extend the affordability problem posing increased risks to poor households harming their health, wellbeing and productivity (Garnham et al., 2022; Hick et al., 2022; Leviten-Reid et al., 2020). An illustrative example emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic, where individuals residing in unsafe and poor-quality houses faced higher rates of virus transmission and mortality (Housing Europe, 2021; OECD, 2020). Hence, addressing housing affordability necessitates recognising it as a mutually dependent relationship between housing quality and individuals (Stone, 2006). Fuel poverty and costly long-term maintenance Affordable houses of poor quality pose risks of fuel poverty and costly long-term maintenance. This risk makes them economically unsustainable. For example, good quality entails the home being energy efficient to mitigate fuel poverty. However, it might become unaffordable to heat the dwelling after paying housing costs because of its poor quality (Stone et al., 2011). Thus, affordability needs to consider potential fluctuations in non-housing prices, such as energy bills (AHC, 2019; Smith, 2007). Poor quality also can emerge from decisions made during the design and construction stages. For example, housing providers may prioritise reducing construction costs by using low-quality and less expensive materials or equipment that may lead to costly recurring maintenance and running costs over time (Emekci, 2021). Proximity to work and amenities The proximity to workplaces and amenities influences housing quality and has an impact on economic and environmental sustainability. From a financial perspective, Disney (2006) defines affordable housing as "an adequate basic standard that provides reasonable access to work opportunities and community services, and that is available at a cost which does not cause substantial hardship to the occupants". Relocating to deprived areas far from work opportunities, essential amenities, and community services will not make housing affordable (Leviten-Reid et al., 2020). Commuting to a distant workplace also incurs environmental costs. Research shows that reduced commuting significantly decreases gas emissions (Sutton-Parker, 2021). Therefore, ensuring involves careful planning when selecting housing locations, considering their impact on economic and environmental sustainability (EK Mulliner & Maliene, 2012). Moreover, design practices can contribute by providing adaptability and flexibility, enabling dwellers to work from home and generate income (Shehayeb & Kellett, 2011). Climate change's mutual impact Climate change can pose risks to housing affordability and, conversely, housing affordability can impact climate change. A house cannot be considered "affordable" if its construction and operation result in adverse environmental impacts contributing to increased CO2 emissions or climate change (Haidar & Bahammam, 2021; Salama, 2011). For a house to be environmentally sustainable, it must be low-carbon, energy-efficient, water-efficient, and climate-resilient (Holmes et al., 2019). This entails adopting strategies such as incorporating eco-friendly materials, utilizing renewable energy sources, improving energy efficiency, and implementing sustainable water management systems (Petrović et al., 2021). However, implementing these measures requires funding initiatives to support the upfront costs, leading to long-term household savings (Holmes et al., 2019). Principio del formulario Furthermore,  when houses lack quality and climate resilience, they become unaffordable. Households bear high energy costs, especially during extreme weather conditions such as heatwaves or cold spells (Holmes et al., 2019). Issues like cold homes and fuel poverty in the UK contribute to excess winter deaths (Lee et al., 2022). In this context, climate change can adversely affect families, impacting their financial well-being and health, thereby exacerbating housing affordability challenges beyond mere rent-to-income ratios.    

Created on 17-10-2023

Author: A.Elghandour (ESR4), K.Hadjri (Supervisor)

Read more ->

Area: Design, planning and building

Measuring housing affordability refers to assessing the extent to which households can secure suitable housing in relation to their financial resources and other relevant factors. To date there is no global agreement on measuring housing affordability, nor is there a single metric which comprehensively encompasses all the considerations regarding households' ability to access suitable housing in a convenient location at an affordable cost (Ezennia & Hoskara, 2019; OECD, 2021b). Several approaches exist to measure housing affordability, with two popular approaches, namely the Income Ratio Method (IRM), and the Residual Income Method (RIM) (Ezennia & Hoskara, 2019; Stone et al., 2011). Both are recommended to be accompanied by housing quality standards to evaluate what a household is paying for and a measure of housing satisfaction (Haffner & Heylen, 2011; OECD, 2021b). However, the perception of what constitutes satisfactory, quality, or affordable housing is subjective. This perception can be influenced by economic and social circumstances that policymakers may not perceive as directly relevant to housing policy (OECD, 2021b). The Income Ratio Method (IRM) is the most commonly used in policy and housing market-relevant statistics, as it is easy to measure and compare among different countries. It is based on the housing costs to income ratio defined by national authorities not to exceed a certain proportion (Haidar & Bahammam, 2021; Smith, 2007; Stone, 2006). The official EU indicator for IRM is the "Housing Cost Overburden" index. It considers households suffering from affordability issues if more than 40% of their net income is spent on housing costs (AHC, 2019; Hick et al., 2022; OECD, 2020). However, IRM has been widely criticised as it does not reflect if the household could afford non-housing costs and for how long. The focus on housing costs neglects non-housing costs of utility bills, schools, health, transportation, and so on (AHC, 2019). In this sense, Ezennia & Hoskara, (2019) investigation of the weaknesses of measuring housing affordability emphasised the need to reflect a household's capability to balance current and future costs to attain a house – "access to a house at a certain period" while maintaining other basic expenses without experiencing any financial hardship. The Residual Income Method (RIM) is the second dominant approach. It recognises that after paying the housing costs, a household might be unable to satisfy its non-housing requirements. Thus, the RIM is the remaining income after subtracting housing costs, based on the idea that Housing Affordability is the households' ability to cover their housing costs while still being able to pay their non-housing expenditures (Stone et al., 2011; Stone, 2006). The residual income method took a step closer to resonating with non-housing costs. However, both Haffner & Heylen (2011) and Bramley (2012) advised that the IRM and RIM approaches "are not interchangeable" and need to be combined to provide a comprehensive perception of housing affordability. This combination becomes apparent when comparing both for different household compositions, health, or work conditions. For instance, a house might be affordable when measured using the IRM from the housing costs standpoint, but it might not be affordable utilising the RIM, which is connected with non-housing costs. This combination is referred to as the Composite Method from which several advanced economic modelling approaches to measure housing affordability were developed (Ezennia & Hoskara, 2019). However, relying solely on economic criteria to assess affordability and thus overlooking quality and sustainability may not prove sufficient. A poor-quality house can impose hardships on its residents, and an unsustainable dwelling can strain the environment. Mitigating this issue may involve complementing affordability measurements with indicators reflecting housing quality and sustainability to expand the purely economic view (Ezennia & Hoskara, 2019; Haffner & Heylen, 2011; Mulliner et al., 2013; Salama, 2011). Various indicators can be used to assess housing quality beyond just its cost. These indicators could be seen as serving three primary purposes: (1) to measure the quality of a housing scheme and compare it to others within a country (Homes and Communities Agency, 2011), (2) to measure the quality of housing in one country and compare it to other countries (OECD, 2021b), and (3) to measure housing satisfaction across groups (OECD, 2021a; Riazi & Emami, 2018). An example of the first purpose is England's Housing Quality Indicators (HQIs) system (Homes and Communities Agency, 2011), which is currently withdrawn. HQIs served  as “ measurement and assessment tool to evaluate housing schemes on the basis of quality rather than just cost” design standards mandated for affordable housing providers funded through the National Affordable Housing Programme from 2008 to 2011 and the Affordable Homes Programme from 2011 to 2015. The system comprised ten indicators, which can be categorized into four groups. The first category focused on the location and proximity to amenities and services. The second dealt with site-related aspects such as landscaping, open spaces, and pathways. The third pertained to the housing unit itself, encompassing factors like noise, lighting, accessibility, and sustainability. Lastly, the fourth category addressed the external environment (Homes and Communities Agency, 2011). To enable meaningful cross-country comparisons, it is crucial that the data used for measuring and assessing these indicators are both available and up-to-date. However, it is important to acknowledge that this may not be the case in all countries, as pointed out by the OECD in 2021 (OECD, 2021b). Consequently, to accurately determine what residents are paying for in terms of quality and to facilitate meaningful comparisons, the OECD 2021 Policy Brief on Affordable Housing has emphasized the necessity of two additional housing quality indicators to complement affordability measurements. The first proposed indicator is the "Overcrowding Rate," which evaluates whether a dwelling provides sufficient space for household members based on their composition. This metric assesses whether residents have adequate living space according to the size and structure of their household. The second indicator is the "Housing Deprivation Rates," which gauge inadequate housing conditions. This encompasses issues related to maintenance, such as roofs, walls, floors, foundations, and deteriorating window frames. Moreover, these rates consider the absence of essential amenities, including sanitary facilities. By taking all these factors into account, this indicator offers a comprehensive perspective on the overall quality and habitability of housing in a specific area. Considering subjective measures of housing affordability can be advantageous when assessing housing affordability and quality based on household perceptions. These measures aim to capture housing satisfaction, reflecting the quality of the dwelling as accommodation (OECD, 2021a). In a broader context, housing satisfaction might be termed residential satisfaction, encompassing not just the dwelling but also its surroundings, including places and people. Residential satisfaction assesses how well the current residence and surrounding environment align with the household's desired living conditions (Riazi & Emami, 2018). Therefore, incorporating subjective measures is valuable in assessing housing affordability, helping to identify the determinants of housing satisfaction. Indicators such as satisfaction with the availability of good and affordable housing are crucial aspects to consider in this context (OECD, 2021a). When it comes to sustainability indicators, incorporating them into the measurement of housing affordability remains a wicked  problem. Finding a single comprehensive measure that encompasses the multifaceted aspects of sustainability related to housing affordability is challenging. The technical complexity stems from the necessity to integrate assessments of household characteristics, environmental impacts, financing, and financial aspects, along with housing stress factors. This challenge is exacerbated by the persistent fluctuations in housing prices and recurring expenses like water and energy bills (AHC, 2019). Hence, easily calculable methods such as the Income-to-Rent Ratio (IRM) and Residual Income Model (RIM) continue to be widely used for assessing housing affordability from a top-down perspective at a macro level. Although imperfect, these methods still provide valuable support for policy decision-making to a certain extent (AHC, 2019; Haffner & Heylen, 2011; OECD, 2021a).   

Created on 17-10-2023

Author: A.Elghandour (ESR4), K.Hadjri (Supervisor)

Read more ->

Area: Community participation

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, participation is “the act of taking part in an activity or event”. Likewise, it can also mean “the fact of sharing or the act of receiving or having a part of something.” It derives from old French participacion which in turn comes from late Latin participationem, which means “partaking” (Harper, 2000).  References to participation can be found in many fields, including social sciences, economics, politics, and culture. It is often related to the idea of citizenship and its different representations in society. Hence, it could be explained as an umbrella concept, in which several others can be encompassed, including methodologies, philosophical discourses, and tools. Despite the complexity in providing a holistic definition, the intrinsic relation between participation and power is widely recognised. Its ultimate objective is to empower those involved in the process (Nikkhah & Redzuan, 2009). An early application of participatory approaches was the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) which exerted a significant influence in developing new discourses and practices of urban settings (Chambers, 1994; Friedmann, 1994). In the late 1970s increasing attention was paid to the concept by scholars, and several associated principles and terminologies evolved, such as the participation in design and planning with the Scandinavian approach of cooperative design (Bφdker et al., 1995; Gregory, 2003). Participation in design or participatory design is a process and strategy that entails all stakeholders (e.g. partners, citizens, and end-users) partaking in the design process. It is a democratic process for design based on the assumption that users should be involved in the designs they will go on to use (Bannon & Ehn, 2012; Cipan, 2019; Sanoff, 2000, 2006, 2007). Likewise, participatory planning is an alternative paradigm that emerged in response to the rationalistic and centralized – top-down – approaches. Participatory planning aims to integrate the technical expertise with the preferences and knowledge of community members (e.g., citizens, non-governmental organizations, and social movements) directly and centrally in the planning and development processes, producing outcomes that respond to the community's needs (Lane, 2005). Understanding participation through the roles of participants is a vital concept. The work of Sherry Arnstein’s (1969) Ladder of Citizen Participation has long been the cornerstone to understand participation from the perspective of the redistribution of power between the haves and the have-nots. Her most influential typological categorisation work yet distinguishes eight degrees of participation as seen in Figure 1: manipulation, therapy, placation, consultation, informing, citizen control, delegated power and partnership. Applied to a participatory planning context, this classification refers to the range of influence that participants can have in the decision-making process. In this case, no-participation is defined as designers deciding based upon assumptions of the users’ needs and full-participation refers to users defining the quality criteria themselves (Geddes et al., 2019). A more recent classification framework that also grounds the conceptual approach to the design practice and its complex reality has been developed by Archon Fung (2006) upon three key dimensions: who participates; how participants communicate with one another and make decisions together, and how discussions are linked with policy or public action. This three-dimensional approach which Fung describes as a democracy cube (Figure 2), constitutes a more analytic space where any mechanism of participation can be located. Such frameworks of thinking allow for more creative interpretations of the interrelations between participants, participation tools (including immersive digital tools) and contemporary approaches to policymaking. Aligned with Arnstein’s views when describing the lower rungs of the ladder (i.e., nonparticipation and tokenism), other authors have highlighted the perils of incorporating participatory processes as part of pre-defined agendas, as box-ticking exercises, or for political manipulation. By turning to eye-catching epithets to describe it (Participation: The New Tyranny? by Cooke & Kothari, 2001; or The Nightmare of Participation by Miessen, 2010), these authors attempt to raise awareness on the overuse of the term participation and the possible disempowering effects that can bring upon the participating communities, such as frustration and lack of trust. Examples that must exhort practitioners to reassess their role and focus on eliminating rather than reinforcing inequalities (Cooke & Kothari, 2001).

Created on 17-02-2022

Author: A.Pappa (ESR13), L.Ricaurte (ESR15), M.Alsaeed (ESR5)

Read more ->

Area: Community participation

From the three pillars of sustainable development, economic, environmental and social, the latter  involving social equity and the sustainability of communities, has  been especially neglected. Ongoing problems caused by conflicting economic, environmental and social goals with regard to the processes of urbanisation continue. underpinning economic growth that contradict principles of environmental and social justice (Boström, 2012; Cuthill, 2010; Winston, 2009). Research on sustainable development highlights the need for further investigation of social sustainability (Murphy, 2012; Vallance et al., 2011). Social sustainability has been interpreted as an umbrella term encompassing many other related concepts; “social equity and justice, social capital, social cohesion, social exclusion, environmental justice, quality of life, and urban liveability” (Shirazi & Keivani, 2019, p. 4). A vast number of studies have been dedicated to defining social sustainability by developing theoretical frameworks and indicators particularly relevant to urban development and housing discourse (Cuthill, 2010; Dempsey et al., 2011; Murphy, 2012; Woodcraft, 2012). However, with a lack of consensus on the way of utilising these frameworks in a practical way, especially when applied to planning, social sustainability has remained difficult to evaluate or measure. Consequently, planning experts, housing providers and inhabitants alike understand social sustainability as a normative concept, according to established social norms, and less as an opportunity to critically examine existing institutions. Vallance et al (2011) provide three categories to analyse social sustainability, development, bridge and maintenance sustainability: (a) social development improves conditions of poverty and inequity, from the provision of basic needs to the redistribution of power to influence existing development paradigms; (b) the conditions necessary to bridge social with ecological sustainability, overcoming currently disconnected social and ecological concerns; and (c) the social practices, cultural preferences as well as the environments which are maintained over time. Maintenance social sustainability particularly deals with how people interpret what is to be maintained and includes “new housing developments, the layout of streets, open spaces, residential densities, the location of services, an awareness of habitual movements in place, and how they connect with housing cultures, preferences, practices and values, particularly those for low-density, suburban lifestyles” (Vallance et al., 2011, p. 345). Therefore, the notion of maintenance is especially important in defining social sustainability by directly investigating the established institutions, or “sets of norms” that constitute the social practices and rules, that in turn, affect responsibilities for planning urban spaces. A conceptual framework that appears frequently in social sustainability literature is that of Dempsey et al. (2011)⁠ following Bramley et al. (2009), defining social sustainability according to the variables of social equity and sustainability of community and their relationship to urban form, significantly at the local scale of the neighbourhood. In terms of the built environment, social equity (used interchangeably with social justice) is understood as the accessibility and equal opportunities to frequently used services, facilities, decent and affordable housing, and good public transport. In this description of local, as opposed to regional services, proximity and accessibility are important. Equitable access to such local services effectively connects housing to key aspects of everyday life and to the wider urban infrastructures that support it. Sustainability of community is associated with the abilities of society to develop networks of collective organisation and action and is dependent on social interaction. The associated term social capital has also been used extensively to describe social norms and networks that can be witnessed particularly at the community level to facilitate collective action (Woolcock, 2001, p. 70). They might include a diversity of issues such as resident interaction, reciprocity, cooperation and trust expressed by common exchanges between residents, civic engagement, lower crime rates and other positive neighbourhood qualities that are dependent on sharing a commitment to place (Foster, 2006; Putnam, 1995; Temkin & Rohe, 1998). In fact, “the heightened sense of ownership and belonging to a locale” is considered to encourage the development of social relations (Hamiduddin & Adelfio, 2019, p. 188). However, the gap between theoretical discussions about social sustainability and their practical application has continued. For example, the emphasis of social sustainability as a target outcome rather than as a process has been prioritised in technocratic approaches to planning new housing developments and to measuring their success by factors which are tangible and easier to count and audit. Private housing developers that deal with urban regeneration make bold claims to social sustainability yet profound questions are raised regarding the effects of gentrification (Dixon, 2019). Accordingly, the attempted methods of public participation as planning tools for integrating the ‘social’ have been found to be less effective - their potential being undercut due to the reality that decision-making power has remained at the top (Eizenberg & Jabareen, 2017). Therefore, social sustainability is not a fixed concept, it is contingent on the interdependence of the procedural aspects (how to achieve social sustainability) and substantive aspects (what are the outcomes of social sustainability goals) (Boström, 2012). From this point of view, social sustainability reveals its process-oriented nature and the need to establish processes of practicing social sustainability that begin with the participation of citizens in decision-making processes in producing equitable (i.e. socially sustainable) development. As a dimension of sustainable development that is harder to quantify than the economic or environmental aspects, the operationalisation of social sustainability goals into spatial, actionable principles has remained a burgeoning area of research. In such research, methods for enhancing citizen participation are a particularly important concern in order to engage and empower people with “non-expert” knowledge to collaborate with academic researchers.

Created on 03-06-2022

Author: A.Panagidis (ESR8)

Read more ->

Area: Community participation

Sustainability is primarily defined as 'the idea that goods and services should be produced in ways that do not use resources that cannot be replaced and that do not damage the environment' (Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus, n.d.) and is often used interchangeably with the term “sustainable development”(Aras & Crowther, 2009). As defined by the UN, sustainable development is the effort to “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations, 1987) and is often interpreted as the strategies adopted towards sustainability with the latter being the overall goal/vision (Diesendorf, 2000). Both of these relatively general and often ambiguous terms have been a focal point for the past 20 years for researchers, policy makers, corporations as well as local communities, and activist groups, among others, (Purvis et al., 2019). The ambiguity and vagueness that characterise both of these terms have contributed to their leap into the global mainstream as well as the broad political consensus regarding their value and significance (Mebratu, 1998; Purvis et al., 2019), rendering them one of the dominant discourses in environmental, socio-political and economic issues (Tulloch, 2013). It is, however, highly contested whether their institutionalisation is a positive development. Tulloch, and Tulloch & Nielson (2013; 2014) argue that these terms -as they are currently understood- are the outcome of the “[colonisation of] environmentalist thought and action” which, during the 1960s and 1970s, argued that economic growth and ecological sustainability within the capitalist system were contradictory pursuits. This “colonisation” resulted in the disempowerment of such discourses and their subsequent “[subordination] to neoliberal hegemony” (Tulloch & Neilson, 2014, p. 26). Thus, sustainability and sustainable development, when articulated within neoliberalism, not only reinforce such disempowerment, through practices such as greenwashing, but also fail to address the intrinsic issues of a system that operates on, safeguards, and prioritises economic profit over social and ecological well-being (Jakobsen, 2022). Murray Bookchin (1982), in “The Ecology of Freedom” contends that social and environmental issues are profoundly entangled, and their origin can be traced to the notions of hierarchy and domination. Bookchin perceives the exploitative relationship with nature as a direct outcome of the development of hierarchies within early human societies and their proliferation ever since. In order to re-radicalise sustainability, we need to undertake the utopian task of revisiting our intra-relating, breaking down these hierarchical relations, and re-stitching our social fabric. The intra-relating between and within the molecules of a society (i.e. the different communities it consists of) determines how sustainability is understood and practised (or performed), both within these communities and within the society they form. In other words, a reconfigured, non-hierarchical, non-dominating intra-relationship is the element that can allow for an equitable, long-term setting for human activity in symbiosis with nature (Dempsey et al., 2011, p. 290). By encouraging, striving for, and providing the necessary space for all voices to be heard, for friction and empathy to occur, the aforementioned long-term setting for human activity based on a non-hierarchical, non-dominating intra-relating is strengthened, which augments the need for various forms of community participation in decision-making, from consulting to controlling. From the standpoint of spatial design and architecture, community participation is already acknowledged as being of inherent value in empowering communities (Jenkins & Forsyth, 2009), while inclusion in all facets of creation, and community control in management and maintenance can improve well-being and social reproduction (Newton & Rocco, 2022; Turner, 1982). However, much like sustainability, community participation has been co-opted by the neoliberal hegemony; often used as a “front” for legitimising political agendas or as panacea to all design problems, community participation has been heavily losing its significance as a force of social change (Smith & Iversen, 2018), thus becoming a depoliticised, romanticised prop. Marcus Miessen (2011) has developed a critical standpoint towards what is being labelled as participation; instead of a systematic effort to find common ground and/or reach consensus, participation through a cross-benching approach could be a way to create enclaves of disruption, i.e. processes where hierarchy and power relations are questioned, design becomes post-consensual spatial agency and participation turns into a fertile ground for internal struggle and contestation. Through this cross-benching premise, community participation is transformed into a re-politicised spatial force. In this context, design serves as a tool of expressing new imaginaries that stand against the reproduction of the neoliberal spatial discourse. Thus, sustainability through community participation could be defined as the politicised effort to question, deconstruct and dismantle the concept of dominance by reconfiguring the process of intra-relating between humans and non-humans alike.

Created on 08-06-2022

Author: E.Roussou (ESR9)

Read more ->

Related publications

No entries

Blogposts

No entries

Relational graph

icon case study Case Study
icon case study Concept
icon case study Publication
icon case study Blogposts