$8800 house design helps prevent fatal diseases in African children
science.org
science.org
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.
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
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.
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
This study seems poorly designed if they didn't anticipate this outcome, though.
“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?
never finishes - loop. well done science.org webdev team.
That's not to say that the UK is OK, housing affordability is a political topic (and applicable to many developed countries).
In that climate? What's next? Sell them the obsolete energy tech nobody wants at home?
"Research". Yeah. "Marketing via Freemium" fits better.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh and also you don’t have to look forwards at projections, you can look backwards at the population growth, it’s not as if this sort of thing just started yesterday.
A more apt comparison would be helping someone with a disabling genetic condition to have kids who will then have the same disabling genetic condition.
If you can fix the genetic condition at the same time then sure this is a noble aim. But otherwise, are you not just kicking the can down the road?
Saving the person themselves would be fine, to be clear, I’m just commenting specifically on the “and helping them to have children with the same condition” bit. And where “development” would be curing the condition by allowing them to be self sustaining without continual outside intervention.