Housing for Sustainable Livelihoods: the role of schooling and personalisation

Housing for Sustainable Livelihoods: the role of schooling and personalisation Exploring Links, Gaps, and Livelihood Based Principles Dr Kurt Seemann:Core Program Leader: Sustainable Desert Settlements Desert Knowledge CRC Southern Cross University

Where

Potential about Remote Aboriginal Schools and Housing • Almost all remote communities have, or have access to, a school system at least up to yr 6. • Run by professionals (teachers) and institutionally linked into family lives • Most have access to or can reach basic health institution • Most have access to a store/retail outlet • Presents a potential for Diffusion and communication • But R&M is seen as adult based • Not many communities have a technical institutional base!

Two ideas • “Housing for Livelihood” V “Housing for Health”? • Is it time to explore another dimension in policy for remote area housing? • Schooling: growing up with informed housing technology and design knowledge & skills • The gap in educational continuity after primary and before VET technical training • Where do people learn and grow up with design and technology skills and knowledge before age of VET training kicks in? • Do we wonder why housing R&M and choices seem complex for people?

It costs a lot to deliver domestic houses compared to the urban centres Its more than the house its also the ‘reticulated infrastructure’ to service the house Its more than Capital, its also R&M Training Adults in Urban VET standards is the assumed starting point Schooling is assumed to provide technology education in the years leading up to VET age Equity based on ‘sameness’ of house technology as in the urban centres: Supplier driven? Connecting houses to urban service technologies is always better, equitable? Send in crews to repair monthly, retrofit or refurbish every few years - for many that’s dreamin’? Assumed problems V Assumed solutions

Does Equity of Input lead to equity of Outcome? • Yes, Housing links to health. • But should it also be oriented to improve local livelihood outcomes? “Housing for local livelihoods”?? • When the goal of house lifecycle is contribution to local user livelihood, house design shifts its focus, and house lifecycle affordability begins to include • local conditions of skills, ideas, climate and R&m accessory access and affordability • Householder enabled to personalise their dwelling becomes a marker of greater lifecycle value for the dwelling itself: extending house life means reducing housing lifecycle costs.

Context CONTEXT Dist, Pop, Econ, Climate, Other Social-Physical Capital: Inputs & Processes Outcomes Livelihood? Economy? Sustainable Capital? INPUTS Physical/Social PROCESSES Social/Physical OUTPUTS (Lifecycle) Sustained Housing ?? Feedback Management FEEDBACK Contingent Valuation Basic Total System: Point of Human - Physical interaction (functions in settlements)

Exploring technacy context of remote householders What foundations exist in the assumed level of capacity of householders to engage in housing technologies both as choice basis and as skills?

Capability Indicators? Householders tools for R&M In Urban Context, DIY and the local Hardware store chains are booming - tend to see more tools like the Right Hand list.

What DIY do people do in R&M?Suggests degree of technacy alignment, if any, to Housing R&M?

Housing for Shelter: House is a unit of capital: job’s done when built. Householder not engaged with the house ‘sense of owning? Design is standardised, generalised Policy goals move to cheaper housing units, or Centralised regional (far away) management R&M is ‘brought in’ and householder not encouraged to R&M Housing for Livelihood Houses must leave a livelihood foot print for householders/community Householder drives design and encouraged/resourced to accessorise Design is semi-standardised Policy goals seek housing technology and designs that link to local R&M DIY potential: access to furniture, plug and replace whitegoods, minor fittings and fixtures, shelves and storage all DIY Housing for Local Livelihood

Does Equity of Input lead to equity of Outcome? • Yes, there is the imperative to fill the gaps of shelter to houseless families ASAP. • But are urban standards in house technologies & designs end-user sustainable (economic or social)? • Community and householder economic capacities • Community and householder management support/capacities • In many remote small communities, the supplied type of house and its service technologies are beyond local capabilities or economies to sustain them. • Skill to R7m require a level of certifications beyond local economic capacity to sustain those skills, but redesigned housing may open an intermediate level of local Skill certification that manages most “house first aid” prior to bring in the full trade: the para-trade based house design? • So why not allow locally valued innovations in types of housing and designs? Scalable development at household level.

Does Equity of Input lead to equity of Outcome? • Yes, all houses need reliable R&M. • But is the house technology designed and chosen to engage householder & R&M local supplier (eg., local general store) for minor R&M? • Its more the fixtures than the house! • And its more linked to white goods than the wall fittings. • In remote communities, the general store ‘stock’ is a significant R&M indicator • What would happen is a Major Hardware Store (Bunnings?) were located in or near remote communities?

Cost Critical Events: Selected Findings Technical service support & funding • Standards usually supply driven, not driven by demand to meet local capacity and performance benchmarks • Divided along technical specialisation areas (so synergy of service and evaluation difficult) • Risky, project based, stop start bidding short-term. This affected gender employment • “Men’s” work/income was sporadic/opportunist • “Women’s” work/income was steady, developmental and able to be built upon and programmed

Outsourcing means cash flow out:i.e., a small housing for livelihood footprint

Cost Critical Events: Its not just the house, its what itdoes and doesn’t contain for DIY value. Stove, Bathroom, Fridge (RHS) are very sensitive ‘markers’, possibly key stone markers, so may only need to measure these in future…

Foster Local Capacity and Stores for DIY innovations • Personalisation => DIY innovations => extends lifecycle • However, often clipboard evaluations don’t record this. • Could represent basis for regional innovation and economic stimulation • Potential for education and employment • Continuity gap and lack of deep social support for fostering local ideas from K-9 education

Store and House R&M Link • Tools possessed in household correlated with tools sold in community store. • But almost opposite to what tools were used in council depot • Store stock critical as tools possessed predicts improved rating on shelters

The Schooling Link • Almost all Housing education and training assumes mainstream trades and adult education. • Is this assumption effective? • With COAG and Coordinated planing, adults are increasingly expected to be well enabled to know the pros and cons of housing and R&M options in designs and technologies • Is this assumption backup with local capability investment?

The Schooling Problem • Low completion rates among remote Aboriginal VET trade courses • And if they do complete, does the training foster local livelihoods around remote housing choices or better livelihood fit to empty the community and move to the urban centres?

The Schooling Problem • Around 50% of all desert communities have a primary school. • 41% of WA desert communities have a secondary school. • 8% in NT. • 25% of desert communities have access to TAFE or other education services • There is a HUGE education participation gap in many remote communities yrs 7-9 Young, Guenther & Boyle (2006) Growing the Desert: Effective educational pathways for remote Indigenous peoples, NCVER.

Is VET (post yr 9 (15yrs) Effective? • VET only effective if: • you live in towns or large communities close to towns • you speak English as your first language • you are prepared to move away from home for training and work • Emerging livelihoods activities on communities will not reflect mainstream industry occupations • Capacity building and community development critical but not current core business of VET Young, Guenther & Boyle (2006) Growing the Desert: Effective educational pathways for remote Indigenous peoples, NCVER.

The technology learning GAP in Schooling • Remotes community R&M training targets Adults in VET, but: • A great number of remote community children do not continue or have access to schooling between end Primary and start of young adult VET access? • So there is a structural supply problem to develop socially wide informed and skilled technological capability to feed into any remote R&M VET program • This may severely limit pool of locally informed discourse with housing negotiations of choice, design and householder / housing engagement

The BIGGER GAP in Schooling • Even if remote communities could gain continuous educational access locally in technology and housing yrs 7-9+. • Are community school curriculum's teaching as a core, locally enhanced housing design and technology skills and knowledge (eg. are they teaching technacy, with literacy and numeracy?)

The BIGGER GAP in Schooling • NT Gov Ramsey Review of Secondary Education Dec 2003. • This review identified the importance of developing technacy skills – critical skills for negotiating the varying and ever changing technologies increasingly integral to daily life, even on remote communities. • Despite technology capability recommended and noted over 36 times, the schools sector’s response to the review did not acknowledge nor comment on any technological curriculum request for NTG education to accommodate

Adding schooling/curriculum to the coordination policy mix around housing

Schooling (curriculum) linking in policy to housing • The access to most remote communities is already there! • A reasonable curriculum investment years K-6 (ideally K-9) in core technacy along side the norms of literacy and numeracy oriented traditions, has huge potential to multiply up the age range. • Local R&M VET participation and better informed local discussion about the digital and material choices in remote living may lead to better investment impact.

Curriculum may need to step up, a little, to the solution - play their role • “Whole of Government” approaches are developing that hope to yield better outcomes for remote Aboriginal communities: a good thing. • COAG Trials -> 2001-2006 • Establishing the OIPC • What increased expectation will there be on local community clients/users to negotiate and discuss the nature of their local housing needs and level of R&M participation?

COAG Objectives of interest • OICP and COAG Trials core objectives: • encourage innovative approaches traversing new territory • work with Indigenous communities to build the capacity of people in those communities to negotiate as genuine partners with government • build the capacity of government employees to be able to meet the challenges of working in this new way with Indigenous communities.

Main points • Housing for Livelihoods: house policy to leave local house technology engagement value • The store to play a greater roll in householder minor R&M • Policy to fill the gap in education yrs 7-9 to grow up a pool in technology and design knowledge and skills - better for livelihood housing • Yr K-9 to have core technacy/design&technology curriculum

Housing for Sustainable Livelihoods: the role of schooling and personalisation