Let’s replace the local materials and techniques used for generations with expensive, hideous concrete slabs and corrugated roofs designed in a month by outside builders with no experience of local conditions and no concern for how things fit in with the local environment or whether local people can afford them or build them, making them dependent on outside support, all for some dubious gains in mosquito protection that could be achieved just as well by adding some cheap screens to the existing houses. Groundbreaking.
The local materials and techniques which the locals happily cast aside? The hideous concrete slabs and corrugated roofs which poorer families were almost ostracized for accepting? Your aesthetic preference for thatched huts does not override the desires of the people who actually have to live in them, nor the proven health impact. Cost is the real problem here; I don't see these houses competing with bed nets anytime soon in practical terms.
a lot of these NGO people have done so much damage to vulnerable African populations.
a lot of rural African homesteads are usually spaced out - made out of sustainable materials - reed & thatch for roofing, then earth brick - which is cooling.
the latrines are always at least 30m from the sleeping quarters. but of course - some NGOs will come telling the local people that you've been doing it all wrong.
> the latrines are always at least 30m from the sleeping quarters
Toilet facilities are lacking in many parts of the world, and "open defecation" – e.g. toileting in a field without the benefit of a dedicated hole / long-drop / pit – is still in use.
The study did show positive health outcomes with the new housing over a traditional mud + thatch dwelling.
Given that the new housing incorporated dedicated latrines, harvesting of clean water, and insect-exclusion techniques, it's unsurprising that the new housing outperformed traditional dwellings in health outcomes.
It didn't do a cost-benefit analysis comparing an equivalent investment in e.g. provision of latrines, insect-netting, clean water, or simply providing cash to the participants.
All for the affordable price of nine thousand dollars, which is likely more than what a local person makes working for an entire year. It seems to me that the concept of "housing" needs a serious re-think.
Median income in Tanzania is ≈ $1,800pa, so this property is around 5 times the median annual salary.
That said, housing in first world countries is generally a significant multiple of annual median income. In the UK, banks typically lend at 3–4 × an individuals salary or 3 × a couple's combined salary, so a single median earner on around £40k could borrow £120k – £160k.
The article notes the pricing is out-of-reach for many people in Tanzania, but it's also not wildly disconnected from salary:housing ratios in high-income economies.
Also i doubt Tanzania has the code/zoning insanity of the US. You build your hut for cheap and quickly, then you put your concrete house next to it and build it over 10 years as you get money. Probably shared across a larger family. In places like US this impossible; you can only build 1 house on most plots and permits aren't amenable to slow progress so you need a loan and a gigantic pile of money all at once.
Even expensive buildings in Africa will still use thatch roofs because they're cooler, less noisy, and durable. A "mud hut" is pretty ideal for the climate and can be very clean. If malaria is a big deal mosquito nets is a cheap solution that doesn't require a whole new house.
Clicked because I want an $8800 house. The key part seems to be this line:
“But who is going to pay for these houses?” he asks. “The same donors who are currently failing to pay for adequate coverage with long-lasting insecticidal nets, costing about $1.20 per person-year of coverage?”
Put it that way, and even running the trial seems like a waste, because there's no way this was ever going to be cost-effective compared to nets. Perhaps it's meant to lead to more convenient housing techniques which could be applied with acceptable marginal cost; but if that's the case, why not just develop and test those cheaper techniques in the first place?
At least in rural Syria I noticed the opposite. Food/housing/daycare in the farm never enters GDP those things are 'free' that eat most a western persons paycheck. People will spend half of their entire income on entertainment in the form of cell phone, internet, and energy drinks, cigarettes, as their necessities basically dont pass through commerce.
Moving some of the villages’ poorest people to the most upscale housing upset established hierarchies, and some of the lucky participants were initially treated as outcasts. Rumors began to circulate—for example that the homes contained a secret room one could enter but never leav
I would have offered it to some middle/upper class first so they would lead by example. You dont win people over by leading with the example of something being the mark of the low class. Not even the lower class want to willingly be associated with marks of the lower class. They want the things rich successful people are associated with; basic human psychology.
We don't need a house right now, we need food, scrap it and sell it.
Some years later: Alright now that food security has improved lets buy a house. Sorry most construction companies got put out of business by Humanitarian Builder Inc. and they just closed shop cos funding ran out. Contractors aren't building permanent businesses.
If the recipients could only afford a traditional mud + thatch home, the contractors building work was new additional demand, rather than competition against existing builders.
Even when first-world funding dries up, knowledge of the design, its features and benefits will remain. It's also cheaper than the alternative single-storey concrete home design, so perhaps generating new construction demand from people who couldn't quite afford the more expensive single-storey stone house but can afford this new design.
It's certainly an eye-opening unusual project, but I think it's a net gain for the region, even without a sustained/permanent first-world benefactor.
Is anyone else starting to wonder whether somebody is intentionally raising an army for some future purpose in Africa?
Like the thing preventing “development” in Africa isn’t that too many of their children die early. Or, if it is, can someone enlighten me? I don’t understand how that is the problem with “development” occurring there.
You can say the same thing with saving the life of people with rare sicknesses or disabilities in the west. Of course it would be cheaper to let them die as babies. But that’s not a society we wanna live in.
Let’s replace the local materials and techniques used for generations with expensive, hideous concrete slabs and corrugated roofs designed in a month by outside builders with no experience of local conditions and no concern for how things fit in with the local environment or whether local people can afford them or build them, making them dependent on outside support, all for some dubious gains in mosquito protection that could be achieved just as well by adding some cheap screens to the existing houses. Groundbreaking.
The local materials and techniques which the locals happily cast aside? The hideous concrete slabs and corrugated roofs which poorer families were almost ostracized for accepting? Your aesthetic preference for thatched huts does not override the desires of the people who actually have to live in them, nor the proven health impact. Cost is the real problem here; I don't see these houses competing with bed nets anytime soon in practical terms.
well said.
a lot of these NGO people have done so much damage to vulnerable African populations.
a lot of rural African homesteads are usually spaced out - made out of sustainable materials - reed & thatch for roofing, then earth brick - which is cooling.
the latrines are always at least 30m from the sleeping quarters. but of course - some NGOs will come telling the local people that you've been doing it all wrong.
The study did show positive health outcomes with the new housing over a traditional mud + thatch dwelling.
Given that the new housing incorporated dedicated latrines, harvesting of clean water, and insect-exclusion techniques, it's unsurprising that the new housing outperformed traditional dwellings in health outcomes.
It didn't do a cost-benefit analysis comparing an equivalent investment in e.g. provision of latrines, insect-netting, clean water, or simply providing cash to the participants.
All for the affordable price of nine thousand dollars, which is likely more than what a local person makes working for an entire year. It seems to me that the concept of "housing" needs a serious re-think.
Median income in Tanzania is ≈ $1,800pa, so this property is around 5 times the median annual salary.
That said, housing in first world countries is generally a significant multiple of annual median income. In the UK, banks typically lend at 3–4 × an individuals salary or 3 × a couple's combined salary, so a single median earner on around £40k could borrow £120k – £160k.
The article notes the pricing is out-of-reach for many people in Tanzania, but it's also not wildly disconnected from salary:housing ratios in high-income economies.
Also i doubt Tanzania has the code/zoning insanity of the US. You build your hut for cheap and quickly, then you put your concrete house next to it and build it over 10 years as you get money. Probably shared across a larger family. In places like US this impossible; you can only build 1 house on most plots and permits aren't amenable to slow progress so you need a loan and a gigantic pile of money all at once.
Zoning concerns wouldn't apply to a country without functioning state institutions and a monopoly on violence either way.
Don’t worry, they can get a mortgage!
Even expensive buildings in Africa will still use thatch roofs because they're cooler, less noisy, and durable. A "mud hut" is pretty ideal for the climate and can be very clean. If malaria is a big deal mosquito nets is a cheap solution that doesn't require a whole new house.
Clicked because I want an $8800 house. The key part seems to be this line:
“But who is going to pay for these houses?” he asks. “The same donors who are currently failing to pay for adequate coverage with long-lasting insecticidal nets, costing about $1.20 per person-year of coverage?”
Put it that way, and even running the trial seems like a waste, because there's no way this was ever going to be cost-effective compared to nets. Perhaps it's meant to lead to more convenient housing techniques which could be applied with acceptable marginal cost; but if that's the case, why not just develop and test those cheaper techniques in the first place?
They are way too expensive. Tanzania's per capita GDP is about US$1200.00.
Average income in the UK is ≈ £40,000. Average house price in the UK is £270,000 (6.75 × average income).
That's not to say that the UK is OK, housing affordability is a political topic (and applicable to many developed countries).
I'm guessing that at 40 thousand quid you can have some disposable income, but that at 1200 bucks you spend it all on basics.
At least in rural Syria I noticed the opposite. Food/housing/daycare in the farm never enters GDP those things are 'free' that eat most a western persons paycheck. People will spend half of their entire income on entertainment in the form of cell phone, internet, and energy drinks, cigarettes, as their necessities basically dont pass through commerce.
The problem is that wealthier families likely already have better health outcomes. Not exactly a "randomized controlled trial" in that case.
This study seems poorly designed if they didn't anticipate this outcome, though.
Concrete and steel facepalm
In that climate? What's next? Sell them the obsolete energy tech nobody wants at home?
"Research". Yeah. "Marketing via Freemium" fits better.
[dead]
We don't need a house right now, we need food, scrap it and sell it.
Some years later: Alright now that food security has improved lets buy a house. Sorry most construction companies got put out of business by Humanitarian Builder Inc. and they just closed shop cos funding ran out. Contractors aren't building permanent businesses.
If the recipients could only afford a traditional mud + thatch home, the contractors building work was new additional demand, rather than competition against existing builders.
Even when first-world funding dries up, knowledge of the design, its features and benefits will remain. It's also cheaper than the alternative single-storey concrete home design, so perhaps generating new construction demand from people who couldn't quite afford the more expensive single-storey stone house but can afford this new design.
It's certainly an eye-opening unusual project, but I think it's a net gain for the region, even without a sustained/permanent first-world benefactor.
You would almost certainly have got a bigger next gain for the same cost if you gave the same people the money used to build the house.
7x GDP to an unbanked villager? It would be stolen / "shared" post haste.
Is anyone else starting to wonder whether somebody is intentionally raising an army for some future purpose in Africa?
Like the thing preventing “development” in Africa isn’t that too many of their children die early. Or, if it is, can someone enlighten me? I don’t understand how that is the problem with “development” occurring there.
Some people think that preventing the deaths of children is an end in itself, even if it's not the most effective way to contribute to "development."
You can say the same thing with saving the life of people with rare sicknesses or disabilities in the west. Of course it would be cheaper to let them die as babies. But that’s not a society we wanna live in.
Because the UN expects the population to double by 2070?
That's a simple extrapolation of growth rates and some assumptions about improvements in mortality.
110 new homes isn't going to make a dent in raising an army.