Table 1
System resilience assessment matrix (major causes, impacts, attributes, and indicators).
| MAJOR CAUSES | RELATED IMPACTS (FROM ‘RES_APO’ RESEARCH)a | RESILIENCE ATTRIBUTE | RESILIENCE INDICATOR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Urban climate, energy crises and accelerated urbanisation | Strong rains | Environmental comfort | Hygrothermal comfort Visual comfort Acoustic comfort Anthropometric comfort |
| Long periods of drought | |||
| Heatwaves | |||
| Coldwaves | |||
| Obstruction of openings by reforms | |||
| Strong winds | |||
| Acoustic problems | |||
| Ergonomic problems | |||
| Alterations in water supply | Environmental adequacy | Air Water Energy Soil Materials/systems Waste | |
| Alterations in energy supply | |||
| High water and energy costs | |||
| Presence of waste in green areas | |||
| Lack of vegetation | |||
| Low performance of building materials | |||
| PMCMV constructive model and incomplete application of PMCMV | Variety of family profiles | Flexibility | Adaptability Multifunctionality Variability Convertibility |
| Demands for work at home | |||
| Different ways of life | |||
| Need for house extensions | |||
| Lack of privacy of family members | |||
| Need for storage | |||
| Lack of adequate collective transportation | Accessibility | Mobility Universal design Access to social facilities Access to infrastructure | |
| Lack of universal design | |||
| Weak urban insertion | |||
| Lack of infrastructure | |||
| Lack of schools and cultural facilities | |||
| Lack of space for flourishing | Wellbeing | Take notice Give Keep learning Be active Connect | |
| Lack of space for interactions between residents | |||
| No privacy between residents and neighbors | |||
| Poor facilities to perform physical activities | |||
| Need for access to healthy food | |||
| No connectivity with the city | |||
| Lack of green spaces | |||
| Lack of schools and healthcare facilities | |||
| Feeling of belonging: ‘The own home dream’ | |||
| No identity with the neighborhood | |||
| Socioeconomic factors | Poor communication network | Engagement | Take part Share Communication Motivation Safety |
| Weak interaction between neighbors | |||
| Low active participation in local social entities | |||
| Low active participation in public activities | |||
| No awareness of local production | |||
| Insecurity | |||
| Violence |
Table 2
Definitions of impact.
| THE IMPACT ON THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT DERIVES FROM … | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Major causes | Origin, motive, or reason for something to happen. It refers to major events elapsed in time and space that are part of life on Earth (Garcia & Vale 2017). They can be climatic, environmental, social, economic, and/or political | e.g. climate change, population growth, scarcity of natural resources, energy crises, economic and political crises, etc. | |
| Threatsa | Acute shocks | Sudden shocks, derived from acute events that threaten the analysed system (Arup & The Rockefeller Foundation 2015) | e.g. earthquakes, heavy rains, floods, heatwaves, strong winds, disease outbreaks, terrorist attacks, etc. |
| Chronic stresses | Slow disasters that weaken the cohesion of the analysed system (Arup & The Rockefeller Foundation 2015) | e.g. housing shortages, school dropout, high unemployment rates, overloaded or inefficient public transportation system, endemic violence, chronic lack of food and water, absence of public policies, etc. | |
| Negative effects | Damage suffered or caused by something or someone (e.g. physical, moral, and/or property damage). Are negative consequences of the threats on goods and people, which generate pathologies in the built environment and weaken social and affective ties between residents, and between them and the built environment they occupy. Its extension derives from and amplifies the sensitivity/susceptibility of the built environment to threats, i.e. its vulnerability | e.g. landslides, wear of building materials, high waste production, air, water and soil pollution, high consumption of resources, compromising of family income, depression, relationship difficulties, etc. | |
[i] Note: a Threats refer to climatic, environmental, social, economic, and/or political phenomena that have occurred in the urban area and which are capable of impacting on the vulnerability of housing units.
Source: Adapted from Villa et al. (2019).
Table 3
Definitions of the major causes.
| MAJOR CAUSES | DEFINITION |
|---|---|
| Urban climate | Product–producer of anthropic action on the natural environment is analysed at the urban scale. It is related to the perception of climate elements (radiation, ventilation, humidity, rain) and their repercussions in the context of the neighborhood covering differences between seasons |
| Energy crisis | Fruit of the depletion of natural energy matrices, erratic nature of the climate (with climatic phenomena in periodicity and intensity becoming less predictable), and reduced investment in renewable sources. It is related to the perception of the repercussions on the supply, quality, and cost of energy and water |
| Accelerated urbanisation | Implementation of allotments in the natural environment and the quality of green infrastructure (squares, parks, central, and lateral construction sites) resulting. It measures some effects of rapid urbanisation and densification of new areas without adequate planning and monitoring |
| PMCMV construction model | Standard construction model for housing units under the Programa Minha Casa Minha Vida (PMCMV). It is related to the size, layout, material, and construction techniques used in the design of the standard project, and its impact on the lives of residents |
| Incomplete application of the PMCMV | It is related to the incomplete application of all mandatory items (project, urban infrastructure, and social initiatives) when there is an implementation of a social housing development by the PMCMV. Its impact on the quality of the built environment and the lives of users is analysed here |
| Socioeconomic factors | Socioeconomic conditions of existing residents, and what is the cause-and-effect relationship of these factors with the housing units and the PMCMV’s features |
[i] Source: Villa et al. (2022).
Table 4
Structure of the impact tool questionnaire.
| MAJOR CAUSE: FUEL POVERTY | ||
|---|---|---|
| THREATS | NEGATIVE EFFECTS | LEVEL OF DISTURBANCE |
| Change in power supply Change in water supply | Increase in energy bills Power supply interruptions Increase in water bills Interruption in water supply Low quality of water | Little Too much or Not applicable |
[i] Source: Villa et al. (2022).
Figure 1
Location of the case studies.
Sources: Villa et. al 2022 adapted from Parreira and Villa (2019).
Table 5
Case studies information.
| SUCCESSO BRASIL RESIDENTIAL (RSB) | OLIVA RESIDENTIAL (RO) | |
|---|---|---|
| Typology | Single-story house | Apartment |
| Allotment area (m2) | 246,967.60 | 10,897.37 |
| Number of housing units | 141 housing units (138 regular, three accessible) | 6 four-story buildings with 8 units per floor, totaling 192 housing units |
| Estimated population (for four residents/unit) | 564 | 768 |
| Needs program | 2 bedrooms, 1 living plus dining room, 1 kitchen, 1 service area, 1 bathroom | 2 bedrooms, 1 living plus dining room, 1 kitchen, 1 service area, 1 bathroom (always accessible) |
| Housing unit area (m2) | Regular: 37.91 Accessible: 38.15 | 39.61 |
| Income range | 0–3 minimum wages | 0–3 minimum wages |
| Constructive technique | Self-supporting masonry | Self-supporting masonry |
| Location/distance from the city center | South Sector: 10 km | Western Sector: 6.8 km |
| Delivery of houses | 2010–11 | 2016 |
[i] Source: Villa et. al 2022.
Table 6
Performance information.
| SUCCESSO BRASIL RESIDENTIAL (RSB) | OLIVA RESIDENTIAL (RO) | |
|---|---|---|
| Target population | 141 houses | 192 apartments |
| Sampling | 80 houses | 82 apartments |
| Performance period | May–June 2019 August–September 2019 | August–September 2019 January–March 2020 |
| Margin of error | 5.6% | |
| Confidence level | 94% | |
[i] Source: Villa et. al 2022.
Table 7
Ranking of causes by extreme responses.
| SUCCESSO BRASIL RESIDENTIAL (RSB) | CÓRREGO DO ÓLEO RESIDENTIAL (RCO) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| GROUP 1 | GROUP 1 | ||
| MAJOR CAUSES | AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF EFFECT CONSIDERATIONS AS ‘TOO MUCH’ | Major causes | AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF EFFECT CONSIDERATIONS AS ‘TOO MUCH’ |
| Socioeconomic factors | 29% | Energy crisis | 24% |
| Model PMCMV | 36% | Socioeconomic factors | 24% |
| Energy crisis | 37% | Model PMCMV | 25% |
| Incomplete application | 27% | ||
| GROUP 2 | GROUP 2 | ||
| MAJOR CAUSES | AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF EFFECT CONSIDERATIONS AS ‘TOO MUCH’ | MAJOR CAUSES | AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF EFFECT CONSIDERATIONS AS ‘TOO MUCH’ |
| Incomplete application | 49% | Urban climate | 38% |
| Accelerated urbanisation | 57% | Accelerated urbanisation | 43% |
| GROUP 3 | |||
| MAJOR CAUSE | AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF EFFECT CONSIDERATIONS AS ‘TOO MUCH’ | ||
| Urban climate | 78% | ||
[i] Note: PMCMV = Programa Minha Casa Minha Vida.
Source: Villa et. al 2022.
Figure 2
Ranking of negative effects by cause: urban climate, energy crisis, and accelerated urbanisation.
Source: Villa et. al 2022.
Figure 3
Ranking of negative effects by cause: construction model of the Programa Minha Casa Minha Vida (PMCMV).
Source: Villa et. al 2022.
Figure 4
Ranking of negative effects by cause: socioeconomic factors and incomplete application of the Programa Minha Casa Minha Vida (PMCMV).
Source: Villa et. al 2022.
Table 8
Negative effects analysed.
| URBAN CLIMATE | ||
|---|---|---|
| NEGATIVE EFFECT | SUCCESSO BRASIL RESIDENTIAL (RSB) | OLIVA RESIDENTIAL (RO) |
| Low relative air humidity | 92% | 40% |
| Detrition of materials (tiles, ceilings, walls, coatings, floor/paving) | 84% | 72% |
| Need to use an electric shower | 83% | 41% |
| Need for fan/air-conditioning | 81% | 49% |
| Smothering internal atmosphere | 78% | 39% |
[i] Source: Villa et al. (2022).
Figure 5
Lack of watertight coverage and lining in Successo Brasil Residential (RSB) residences.
Source: Bortoli (2018).
Table 9
Negative effects analysed.
| FUEL POVERTY | ||
|---|---|---|
| NEGATIVE EFFECT | SUCCESSO BRASIL RESIDENTIAL (RSB) | OLIVA RESIDENTIAL (RO) |
| Rising energy bills | 77% | 56% |
| Increase in water bills | 57% | 39% |
| High cost of water/electricity bills | 80% | 60% |
[i] Source: Villa et al. (2022).
Table 10
Negative effects analysed.
| INCOMPLETE APPLICATION OF THE PROGRAMA MINHA CASA MINHA VIDA (PMCMV) | ||
|---|---|---|
| NEGATIVE EFFECT | SUCCESSO BRASIL RESIDENTIAL (RSB) | OLIVA RESIDENTIAL(RO) |
| Garbage deposit in green areas/vacant lots/streets and sidewalks | 86% | 46% |
| Lack of afforestation | 74% | 56% |
| Visual pollution (excessive advertising, graffiti, garbage) | 84% | 41% |
[i] Source: Villa et al. (2022).
Figure 6
Deposition of garbage and debris in the institutional area of the Successo Brasil Residential (RSB).
Source: Bortoli (2018).
Figure 7
Lack of shade in the recreational area of the Oliva Residential (RO).
Source: Bortoli (2018).
Figure 8
Afforestation in the Oliva Residential (RO).
Source: Araújo (2020).
Figure 9
Afforestation in the Successo Brasil Residential (RSB) (highlighted in blue).
Source: Morais (2021).
Table 11
Negative effects analysed.
| PMCMV CONSTRUCTIVE MODEL | ||
|---|---|---|
| NEGATIVE EFFECT | SUCCESSO BRASIL RESIDENTIAL (RSB) | OLIVA RESIDENTIAL (RO) |
| Small kitchen | 82% | 55% |
| Problems with electrical, plumbing, or sewage installations | 75% | 38% |
| Self-supporting wall; cannot be demolished and relocated | 59% | 37% |
| Lack of space to develop domestic activities | 37% | 52% |
[i] Note: PMCMV = Programa Minha Casa Minha Vida.
Source: Villa et al. (2022).
Figure 10
Back expansion for a new kitchen.
Sources: Araújo (2020); Morais (2021).
Figure 11
Actual furniture situation.
Sources: Araújo (2020); Morais (2021); with permission.
Table 12
Negative effects analysed.
| INCOMPLETE APPLICATION OF THE PMCMV | ||
|---|---|---|
| NEGATIVE EFFECT | SUCCESSO BRASIL RESIDENTIAL (RSB) | OLIVA RESIDENTIAL (RO) |
| Little relationship with neighborhood leaders | 90% | 18% |
| Absence of local services (lottery, banks, post office, etc.) | 75% | 7% |
| Development of illicit activities (e.g. drug use, trafficking, theft, etc.) | 64% | 62% |
[i] Note: PMCMV = Programa Minha Casa Minha Vida.
Source: Villa et al. (2022).
Table 13
Negative effects analysed.
| SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS | ||
|---|---|---|
| NEGATIVE EFFECT | SUCCESSO BRASIL RESIDENTIAL (RSB) | OLIVA RESIDENTIAL (RO) |
| Difficulty raising money | 74% | 65% |
| Failure to carry out necessary repairs | 67% | 37% |
| Stopping alterations (due to lack of income) | 54% | 41% |
[i] Source: Villa et al. (2022).