Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS

Social Contribution of Housing on Vulnerable Populations: A Case Study


for the Region of La Araucanía
To cite this article: V Maldonado et al 2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 503 012089

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 190.20.242.186 on 18/06/2020 at 22:36


SBE: urban planning, global problems, local policies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 503 (2020) 012089 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/503/1/012089

Social Contribution of Housing on Vulnerable Populations: A


Case Study for the Region of La Araucanía

V Maldonado1, L Sierra-Varela2, M Loyola1


1
Estudiante de Ingeniería en Construcción, Universidad de La Frontera, Francisco
Salazar 01145, Temuco, Chile.
2
Profesor Asociado, Departamento de Ingeniería de Obras Civiles, Universidad de La
Frontera, Francisco Salazar 01145, Temuco, Chile.

E-mail: v.maldonado03@ufromail.cl, leonardo.sierra@ufrontera.cl,


marceloloyolacontreras@gmail.com

Abstract. Within the framework of social sustainability, the studies that measure the
contribution of houses allocated to the country’s most vulnerable population are limited. This
article presents a case study that assesses the contribution of a social housing project to social
sustainability in the Region of La Araucanía, Chile. Here, the degree of social contribution for
the Amuley Ruka project in Pitrufquén, Region of La Araucanía is determined. In this study, a
pre-post assessment was used by triangulating the data obtained in field visits, interviews and
document reviews. Thus, appropriate indicators were adjusted to measure multiple evaluation
criteria and the measurement scales were standardized. All this makes it possible to determine
the vulnerable situation of the beneficiaries, the effects on the context and the criteria to
improve. The results obtained clarify the partial and total contribution of the social housing
project. It is detected that the criteria “Connectivity and access” and “Family support” do not
present significant differences resulting from the project. In addition, the criteria “Community
Health and Safety” and “Recreation infrastructure” show a reduction in their contribution with
respect to the social housing intervention.

1. Introduction
At the moment infrastructure projects have very little consideration for the social aspects in
assessment and planning. This is because the projects are not developed with an approach to social
sustainability, nor is the importance of this as a benefit for people understood [1]. Authors like Sierra
et al. [2] have implemented a methodology to determine the contribution of social sustainability
considering the social effects of infrastructure planning, design and construction.
Although assessment methodologies and studies with approaches to social sustainability have been
developed, nowadays there is no evidence of real cases implemented in Chile that determine the social
contribution of a housing project, nor has how to adapt sustainability criteria to a specific context been
discussed. In recent studies like the Barra case (2019), different criteria are presented for the
evaluation of the social contribution in houses in the Region of La Araucanía. These criteria are
related to several aspects of housing and the neighborhood where there is a social housing project,
serving as tools to assess the living conditions that exist within a neighborhood, as well as identifying
cultural elements, diversity among the residents, infrastructure needed for disabled people, conditions
in agreement with the legitimacy of the project, among others [3].

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
SBE: urban planning, global problems, local policies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 503 (2020) 012089 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/503/1/012089

This article seeks to determine the degree of social contribution of social housing for families in the
country’s most vulnerable 40% from a case study applied to the Amuley Ruka project in Pitrufquén,
IX Region of La Araucanía.
To this end, this article presents the theoretical background to position the case study, then the
research methods and the results are given. Finally, the discussion and the conclusions are provided.

2. Theoretical Background
There are studies that address the concept of social sustainability and relate it to the understanding of
fairness, the eradication of poverty and to ensuring that all the social strata benefit from the country’s
economic growth [4] [10]. Barra (2019) posits different criteria that can measure the social
sustainability of a housing project. From this study a list of fourteen criteria was obtained that address
specific subjects to do with housing and the neighborhood, applicable to the context of the case study.

Integration in the Community Consideration of Comfort inside the


neighborhood Health and Safety public opinion house

Integration of the
design in the Connectivity and
context access

Spaces for family


development Leadership of the
Planning of social housing board

Improvement in
family economic
availability Family support

Recreation Identity and


Motivation for
infrastructure in Culture in the
family wealth
the neighborhood neighborhood

Figure 1. Social criteria for the planning of a social housing project. Source: Barra, 2019.

3. Methodology

3.1. Selection of case study


The following criteria were used to choose the case study:
• The project must belong to Chile’s housing selection solidarity fund according to Supreme
Decree N°49, which is allocated to the most vulnerable population with no borrowing capacity
[5].
• The geographic coverage of studies must be accessible to the research group. The project must
be located in the Region of La Araucanía.
• Accessibility to information about the project according to availability of public offices of the
Housing and Urban Planning Service (SERVIU) for La Araucanía.
• The project must be in the megaproject category. As per Supreme Decree N° 498, a
megaproject is designed for a maximum of 600 people and where a maximum of 160
applicants participate in several calls [6]. This will permit significant results to be obtained for
a population set.
• The project must be recent, with no more than a year since its delivery. This enables the
interviewed/surveyed beneficiaries to remember the living conditions prior to receiving their
current house.

2
SBE: urban planning, global problems, local policies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 503 (2020) 012089 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/503/1/012089

3.2. “Amuley Ruka”case study


According to the case study selection criteria, the project chosen was “Amuley Ruka”, located in
Pitrufquén, Region of La Araucanía. With an ethnic orientation, this megaproject is called “Amuley
Ruka”, which in Mapudungun means “Returning home”. The project benefits 305 people through the
construction of 80 one-story houses and basic urbanization services.

3.3. Research stages


Figure 2 illustrates the research process in three stages. First is the selection of criteria applicable to
the case study. Then, the indicators and their measurement parameters are identified. Finally, the
information from a preliminary measurement is reviewed and the variations are standardized. The
overall result of all criteria determines the degree of social contribution of the project. Figure 2
provides the timeline of this study associated with each stage of the research.

Input Output

• Social criteria for housing


projects (Barra, 2019). • Social contribution of the case
• Case study project study project
• Prior social history of the • Variants in the contribution
families

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

• Type of measurement
• Review of survey results,
• Determination of social • Implementation or
field visit and background
criterion indicators application of the
• Standardization of data
measurement system

13-12-2018 - 10-02-2019 10-02-2019 - 20-04-2019 20-04-2019 - 13-06-2019


3 weeks 5 weeks 3 weeks

Figure 2. Research stages. Source: Prepared by authors.

3.3.1. Input

3.3.1.1. Social criteria for housing projects


In principle the social criteria were obtained from the study by Barra (2019). Indicators were
established that can be applied to the context of the case study and the data obtained from these
indicators can be measured, prior to delivery of the project and after a year of operation.
3.3.1.2. Project background
The technical and administrative background of the Amuley Ruka project in Pitrufquén included
plans, technical specifications, overall budget, calculation reports and assigned complementary
subsidies. This information was contributed by the project consultants and contractors.

3.3.2. Stage 1
In the first stage of the research process the most suitable indicators to measure the assessment criteria
in the case study were established. This stage lasted approximately 3 working weeks.

3
SBE: urban planning, global problems, local policies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 503 (2020) 012089 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/503/1/012089

3.3.3. Stage 2
In this stage, the way to measure each indicator identified in stage 1 was determined. Care was taken
to establish an objective measurement system that could comparatively standardize the previous
results with the later results. To do this, assessment instruments like surveys, field visits and document
review were used. Figure 3 shows the measurement strategies corresponding to each indicator. The
situation before the project is indicated as “Pre” and the evaluation after a year of operation is
indicated as “Post”.

Indicator Measuring instrument Indicator Measuring instrument

Pre: Survey Pre: Survey


Waste storage management History of recreation
Post: Field visit Post: Project
infrastructure

Pre: Survey
Adequate and sufficient Pre: History of the
Post: Field visit
furnishing Capacity for furnishing house beneficiaries
Post: Project.
Pre: Survey Pre: Review of
Access to the neighborhood Post: Field visit Participation of beneficiary minutes and survey
and legitimacy of the project Post: Survey
Pre: Survey
Post: Field visit Pre: Document
Spaces that promote insecurity Outward appearance and state review, Beneficiaries
history
Pre: Document of preservation of the house
Post: Project
review, History of the
Access to emergency services beneficiaries
Post: Field visit and Pre:Survey
Outside noise Post: Survey
document review

Pre: Survey Pre: Survey


Impact of diversity Distance of the house from
Post: Document Post: Document
review, History of the centers of interest review Project.
beneficiaries

Infrastructure for the disabled Pre: Survey Pre: Document


Post: Document Capacity of services review, Beneficiaries
review, History of the history
beneficiaries Post: Project.

Pre:Document review Pre: Document


Municipal ordinances Frequency of public review, Beneficiaries
Post: Document transportation
review history
Post: Project.

Pre: Document
Harmony with the landscape review, Project.
Post: Field visit and Ecological modes of Pre: Survey
and pre-existing buildings Post: Project
Interviews. transportation

Pre: Document
Actions taken by the Pre:N/A
Overcrowding review, Beneficiaries
history committee Post: Survey
Post: Project
Pre: Revisión
Pre: Survey Documental, Actas
Savings on transportation Tenure of the board comité.
Post: Survey
Post: Interviews
Pre: Document
Pre: Survey Committee support for the review, Committee
Savings on energy Post: Survey board minutes
Post: Interviews

Pre: Survey
Occupancy condition of the Pre: Survey
Post: Document Access to work
house review, Project.
Post: Survey

Pre: Document
Pre: Survey
Actions of the committee review, Committee
Diversity in the neighborhood Post: Survey and
minutes
Document review. regarding heritage
Post: Survey
Pre: Survey
Cultural and heritage features Post: Document Motivation to improve family Pre: Survey
in the neighborhood review, Project. wealth Post: Survey

Figure 3. Indicator measurement strategies

4
SBE: urban planning, global problems, local policies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 503 (2020) 012089 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/503/1/012089

Surveys collect background on the living conditions and capture the respondent's impression. Prior
to their implementation, they were validated by experts, with the support of 7 specialists and 8
respondents who were part of the sample. This made it possible to adjust the logistical techniques of
consultation and to improve the formulation of the questions.
To determine the sample (n) of beneficiary families, Equation 1 is used, based on the method by
Vallejo [7]. The sample (n) of people surveyed corresponds to the beneficiaries of the Amuley Ruka
project in Pitrufquén, which is 80 families.

𝑁 × 𝑍2 × 𝑝 × 𝑞
𝑛=
𝐷 2 × (𝑁 − 1) + 𝑍 2 × 𝑝 × 𝑞

Equation 1. Determination of the universe of people to survey.

N: Sample of people to survey


𝐷: Sample error (+-6%)
𝑍: Factor obtained from normal distribution (1.96)
(𝑝𝑞): Factor of variance (50%)
Thus, a sample of 62 families was obtained for the survey, with a 95% confidence level. The surveys
were applied by the research team to the heads of the household to be more accurate in the questions
related to expenses and living conditions in the home.

3.3.4. Stage 3
In this subsection the results of the measurements from Stage 2 are processed. In addition, the
standardization of the measurement of each criterion and its respective indicators appears. In Figure 4
-Multicriterion assessment structure- indicators are linked to social criteria. These indicators are
standardized according to a standard quantitative measurement scale that defines the degree of impact
for each social aspect.

Social Criterion Indicator Standardization

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Waste storage management contribution.
Evaluates waste management

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Adequate and sufficient furnishing
contribution
Evaluates infrastructure capacity

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Community Health and contribution.
Access to the neighborhood
Safety Evaluates shelter.

Spaces that promote insecurity Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest
contribution
Evaluates risk.

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Access to emergency services contribution
Evaluates time to city center.

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Impact of diversity contribution.
Integration in the Evaluates diversity index.
neighborhood

Infrastructure for the disabled Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest
contribution.
Evaluates infrastructure for mobility.

Municipal ordinance operates the same way as


Municipal ordinances any other sector in Pitrufquén; therefore, there
is no significant variation in the social
Integration of the design in 5 contribution.
the context
Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest
Harmony with the landscape and pre- contribution.
existing buildings Evaluates disruption to the landscape.
Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest
Access to emergency services contribution
Evaluates time to city center.

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Impact of diversity contribution.
Integration in the global problems, local policies Evaluates diversity index.
SBE: urban planning, IOP Publishing
neighborhood
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 503 (2020) 012089 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/503/1/012089
Infrastructure for the disabled Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest
contribution.
Evaluates infrastructure for mobility.

Municipal ordinance operates the same way as


Municipal ordinances any other sector in Pitrufquén; therefore, there
is no significant variation in the social
Integration of the design in contribution.
the context
Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest
Harmony with the landscape and pre- contribution.
existing buildings Evaluates disruption to the landscape.

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Spaces for family contribution.
Overcrowding Evaluates degree of overcrowding.
development

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


contribution.
Savings on transportation Evaluates increased transportation spending.

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Improvement in family contribution.
Savings on energy
economic availability Evaluates spending on energy consumption.

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


contribution.
Occupancy condition of the house Evaluates the occupancy condition of the house.

Social Criterion Indicator Standardization

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


contribution.
Evaluates the diversity index.
Diversity in the neighborhood
Identity and Culture in the
neighborhood Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest
contribution.
Cultural and heritage features in the Evaluates the assessment of cultural elements.
neighborhood

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


History of recreation infrastructure contribution.
Recreation infrastructure in Evaluates recreation infrastructure.
the neighborhood

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Capacity for furnishing house contribution.
Evaluates the occupancy condition of the house.

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Participation of beneficiary and contribution.
Consideration of public legitimacy of the project Evaluates the legitimacy of the beneficiary with the
project.
opinion

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Outward appearance and state of contribution.
preservation of the house Evaluates the energy demand of the house.
Comfort inside the house

Outside noise Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


contribution.
Evaluates bothersome noise.

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Distance of the house from centers of
contribution.
interest Evaluates the time needed to reach points of interest.

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Capacity of services contribution.
Evaluates the capacity of basic services.
Connectivity and access
Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest
contribution.
Frequency of public6 transportation Evaluates the capacity of basic services.

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Ecological modes of transportation contribution.
Evaluates changes in transportation habits.
Consideration of public legitimacy of the project Evaluates the legitimacy of the beneficiary with the
project.
opinion

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Outward appearance and state of contribution.
preservation of the house Evaluates the energy demand of the house.
SBE: urban
Comfortplanning, global problems, local policies
inside the house IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 503 (2020) 012089 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/503/1/012089
Outside noise Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest
contribution.
Evaluates bothersome noise.

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Distance of the house from centers of
contribution.
interest Evaluates the time needed to reach points of interest.

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Capacity of services contribution.
Evaluates the capacity of basic services.
Connectivity and access
Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest
contribution.
Frequency of public transportation Evaluates the capacity of basic services.

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Ecological modes of transportation contribution.
Evaluates changes in transportation habits.

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Actions taken by the committee contribution.
Evaluates actions taken by the committee.

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


Leadership of the board Tenure of the board contribution.
Evaluates the stability of the board.

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


contribution.
Committee support for the board Evaluates approval of the committee s management.

Social Criterion Indicator Standardization

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


contribution.
Family support Access to work Evaluates accessibility to place of work.

Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest


contribution.
Actions of the committee regarding Evaluates the committee s management ability
heritage regarding culture and heritage.
Motivation for family wealth
Point scale from 1-4. 4 being the greatest
Motivation to improve family wealth contribution.
Evaluates the action that drive family wealth.

Figure 4. Multicriterion Assessment Structure. Source: Prepared by the authors


3.3.5. Output
3.3.5.1 Social Contribution
Following Jeon (2014), the rate of contribution to the post-project situation in all its variations to
social contribution is calculated. The contribution rate is the quotient between the post-project
situation and the highest assessment on the standardization scale. The average social contribution of
all the criteria and their respective indicators will reflect the degree of total contribution of the project
[8]. Thus, the degree of contribution of the case study project is 68.65%. Figure 5 shows the
contribution of the project to each social criterion represented by thirteen axes. The added area of the
contribution hub of each axis determines the social contribution of the project. Each axis is measured
on a qualitative scale of four percentage points.

7
SBE: urban planning, global problems, local policies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 503 (2020) 012089 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/503/1/012089

1. Community Health and


Safety
13.Motivation for family 100% 2. Integration in the
wealth neighborhood
80%

60% 3.Integration of the design


12.Family support
in the context
40%

20% 4. Spaces for family


11.Leadership of the board
development
0%

5.Improvement in family
10.Connectivity and access
economic availability

6.Identity and culture in


9.Comfort inside the house
the neighborhood
8.Consideration of public 7.Recreation infrastructure
opinion in the neighborhood
Maximum social contribution Case study

Figure 5. Social contribution of the Amuley Ruka project. Source: Prepared by the authors

4. Discussion
During the development of the case study, different observations and important points also arose that
are detailed next. In the current prioritization processes for social housing projects it was clear that
land possession or acquisition is a key element that determines the selection [9]. Land acquisition is
one of the most important problems in social housing projects as this determines the location, access to
services and most of the indicators mentioned in this study. If the aspects related to the location of the
project are not addressed within the framework of social sustainability, it is highly likely that the
contribution of a project will be low based on the criteria of this study [1].
From the results of the contribution, the criteria “Community Health and Safety” and “Recreation
infrastructure” were the only criteria that reduced the social contribution compared to the conditions
without a project. This is because most of the people lived in the central area; therefore, the change of
residence moved them away from services and recreation areas. This reflects the effect of social
housing projects in positioning themselves in peripheral areas. Although Pitrufquén is not a large city,
this issue can be found on a larger scale in metropolitan areas.
The criteria “Improvement in economic availability”, “Connectivity and access” and “Family
support” remained steady with respect to their contribution. Indeed, a large part of the population
sample already belonged to the commune of Pitrufquén, so the indicators associated with these criteria
did not detect any differentiation. Regarding the “Improvement in economic availability” and
residential complex, no significant changes were demonstrated in energy-related expenses despite
having new houses that comply with the current energy regulations and adequate insulation.
The criteria “Leadership of the board” and “Motivation for family wealth” are connected, since the
organization for the PPPF (program to protect family property) subsidies depends on the same board.
The criteria mentioned obtained 100% social contribution. Similar studies such as that by Martínez et

8
SBE: urban planning, global problems, local policies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 503 (2020) 012089 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/503/1/012089

al. (2015)[10] present criteria comparable to this assessment. In this case the different types of housing
do in fact determine the importance of social interaction with respect to population density.
The results of this study are valid considering the following limitations. The case study had some
differentiation conditions, limited by the proximity of the beneficiaries' pre- and post-assessment
residence. In other words, as most of the beneficiaries are from Pitrufquén, some indicators of the
criteria did not show any variability. In addition, due to the small number of D.S. N°49 megaprojects
in the Region of La Araucanía, the number of projects that fulfilled the selection criteria for the case
study was limited. This reduced the data sources.

5. Conclusions
The degree of social contribution of social housing for families belonging to the most vulnerable 40%
of the country was determined in the case study of the Amuley Ruka project in Pitrufquén, Region of
La Araucanía, Chile. The resulting degree of social contribution was 68.65%. The social contribution
of the project was determined by an analysis of multiple social criteria selected from the study by
Barra (2019). The criteria suitable to the study context were: Community health and safety,
Neighborhood integration, Integration of the design in the context, Spaces for family development,
Improvement in economic availability, Identity and culture in the neighborhood, Recreation
infrastructure, Consideration of public opinion, Comfort inside the house, Connectivity and access,
Leadership of the board, Family support and Motivation for Family Wealth.
For these criteria indicators were determined to standardize on measurement scales, allowing the
comparison of the situations “Before the project” and “After delivery of the current house”.
Within the framework of social sustainability, this study is one of the few that addresses an
implementation to determine the social contribution in support of decision-making in a specific case
study. This makes it possible to continue exploring studies that address the assessment of
infrastructures in different contexts, mainly in regions with other demographic characteristics. The
option to seek out methods to improve the standardization of the data used in this study or to develop
specific methodologies for the assessment of social housing projects is also possible.
This study can serve as a model to be replicated in other case studies, and it shows potential
improvements in the social housing design and planning processes to contribute to the sustainability of
a context in Chile.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Technical Inspection team, SERVIU Araucanía, for their collaboration
with the project. In addition, this study was supported with funding from the Directorate of
Investigation of Universidad de La Frontera and the project DI 18-601 and the National Council for
Science and Technology (CONICYT) for FONDECYT Initiation project 11190501.

References
[1] L. Nieto, Metodología de evaluación de proyectos de viviendas sociales. 1999.
[2] L. S. Varela, “Method for estimating the social sustainability of infrastructure projects,” no.
July, 2017.
[3] Barra, “Modelo de toma de decisiones para la evaluación de la contribución social en viviendas
de la Región de la Araucanía. Temuco: Universidad de La Frontera.,” 2019.
[4] Dempsey, N., Brown, C., & Bramley, G, The key to sustainable urban development in UK
cities? The influence of density on social sustainability. Progress in Planning, 89-141., vol. 6,
no. 38. 2012.
[5] Ministerio de Desarrollo Social, “Fondo Solidario de Elección de Vivienda,” pp. 1–17, 2017.
[6] Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo, “Aprueba Reglamento del Programa Fondo Solidario de
Elección de Vivienda.,” pp. 1–56, 2019.
[7] P. Morales Vallejo, Tamaño necesario de la muestra: ¿Cuántos sujetos necesitamos? Madrid:
Universidad Pontificia Comillas. 2012.

9
SBE: urban planning, global problems, local policies IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 503 (2020) 012089 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/503/1/012089

[8] C. M. Jeon, “Incorporating Uncertainity Intro Transportation Desicion Making: A Sustanability-


Orientes Approuch. New York: Research Gater.,” 2014.
[9] Ministerio de Vivienda y Urbanismo, “Gestión de suelos Proyectos Habitacionales 2014-2017,”
2017.
[10] Martínez, E., Baeriswyl, S., & Fuentes, P, “Análisis de la sostenibilidad social en tipologías
residenciales del Gran Concepción (Chile),” 2015.

10