Landscape of Research Relevant to the BBHTC Mission
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Landscape of Research Relevant to the
BBHTC Mission
A Report of Research Funding, Outputs and
Post-Graduate Work Since 2012
K. Saville-Smith (CRESA), K. Witten (SHORE, Massey University), B. James
(Public Policy & Research) and S. Opit (SHORE, Massey University)
July 2018BBHTC: Research Landscape
Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
2 Method ........................................................................................................................... 2
Scope of Research and Landscaping Parameters .............................................................. 3
Compilation of Funding and Activity Data ......................................................................... 4
Interrogation and Capture of Funding and Activity Data .................................................. 6
Analytic Approach and Interpretation ............................................................................... 7
Limitations and Caution ..................................................................................................... 7
3 Funding Lens on the Research Landscape ...................................................................... 8
MBIE Science Funding ........................................................................................................ 9
Health Research Council .................................................................................................. 11
Marsden Funding ............................................................................................................. 13
BRANZ .............................................................................................................................. 14
A Research Landscape through the Funding Lens ........................................................... 15
4 A Research Activity Lens on the Research Landscape .................................................. 17
Research Publications ...................................................................................................... 17
Postgraduate Research Activity ....................................................................................... 21
5 A Landscape of Lumps and Chasms .............................................................................. 24
6 Mission-Led Research: Leveraging and Going Beyond Business as Usual .................... 27
Appendix 1: MBIE Funded Programmes .......................................................................... 30
Appendix 2: HRC Funded Programmes ............................................................................ 31
Appendix 3: Marsden Funded Programmes .................................................................... 32BBHTC: Research Landscape Appendix 4: Research Reports and Published Outputs ................................................... 33 Appendix 5: Relevant Activity from Post-graduate Research.......................................... 60
BBHTC: Research Landscape Figures Figure 1: MBIE funded research relevant to BBHTC ($ million)..............................................................................10 Figure 2: MBIE research targeted to the experience, conditions, world views or outcomes for specific groups by funding ($million) ...................................................................................................................................................11 Figure 3: HRC funded research relevant to BBHTC ($ million) ...............................................................................12 Figure 4: HRC research targeted to the experience, conditions, world views or outcomes for specific groups by funding ($ million) ..................................................................................................................................................13 Figure 5: Marsden current relevant research programmes ($ million) ..................................................................14 Figure 6: BRANZ research funding relevant to BBHTC ($ million) 2017/18 ...........................................................15 Figure 7: Research domains and funder allocations to research relevant to BBHTC mission ($Million) (n=$60.2 million)....................................................................................................................................................................16 Figure 8: Key funders' allocation for BBHTC relevant research by primary population target .............................16 Figure 9: Research outputs by lead author's research provider type (n=408) .......................................................18 Figure 10: Research outputs categorised by publication type (n=409)..................................................................19 Figure 11: Locational focus of research outputs (n=96) .........................................................................................19 Figure 12: The primary population referenced in research outputs (n=81) ..........................................................20 Figure 13: Primary research focus of BBHTC relevant research outputs (n=409) ..................................................21 Figure 14: Postgraduate primary research areas (n=260) .....................................................................................22 Figure 15: Postgraduate research locational focus (n=88) ....................................................................................23 Figure 16: Postgraduate Research - Target Populations (n=60) ............................................................................24 Tables Table 1: Funders and funding amounts of research related to the BBHTC Mission ................................................9 Table 2: The number of postgraduate researchers working related to the BBHTC mission (n=260) ....................22
BBHTC: Research Landscape
1 Introduction
The mission of the Building Better Homes Towns and Cities National Science Challenge
(BBHTC) is as follows:
TE TAHUHU | MISSION
Our mission is premised on Manaaki Tangata. Through co-created, innovative
research/rangahau, the Building Better Homes, Towns and Cities/Ko Ngā Wā
Kāinga Hei Whakamāhorahora NSC will contribute to transforming the systems
and organisations that shape built environments, to deliver homes and
communities that are hospitable, productive, and protective.
It is an enormously ambitious mission for four reasons. Firstly, it is a mission that requires
transformation across a range of dynamics, relations and sectors. Second, to achieve the
mission means contending with a set of conditions that New Zealand cannot change (e.g.,an
ageing population and climate change) but nevertheless present new demands on the
functionality, performance and fair distribution of amenities and use of housing,
neighbourhoods, towns and cities, and rural communities. Third, it is ambitious because
BBHTC is pursuing a mission where there are already profound problems in housing, its
performance, distribution and functionality, as well as, the inclusiveness and sustainability of
towns, settlements, cities and regions. Fourth, the mission is ambitious because of
inadequacies in the research knowledge platform. The latter is marked by fragmentation,
‘siloing’, and unevenness associated with persistent under-resourcing and marginality of
housing, neighbourhoods, towns and cities to the research agendas of research funders and
commissioning agents.
The BBHTC has provided a pathway for some of those problems to be addressed. However,
its resources are limited. The BBHTC is seeking to further refine and target its research
investment and activity in order to maximise traction on its mission. The landscaping exercise
reported here consists of a rapid review designed to assist the BBHTC as it prioritises its future
research investment. To that end, the research landscaping exercise:
• traces out the research landscape in which the BBHTC operates;
• highlights the range of research activity relevant to the BBHTC’s mission;
• comments on the implications for BBHTC’s research priorities;
• focuses on research funding and research activity over the last six years.
1BBHTC: Research Landscape
This report is structured as follows:
• Section 2 overviews the method used to identify, collate, interrogate and analyse
relevant research.
• Sections 3 and 4 illuminate the research landscape through two lenses. The first is,
funding and investment in research relevant to the BBHTC mission but funded outside
the BBHTC and, second, research activity. Research activity is further divided into two
categories:
o research outputs reflected in various forms of publication; and,
o post-graduate research activity.
• Section 5 comments on the key characteristics of the research landscape illuminated by
the two lenses and their triangulation.
• Section 6 points to opportunities for BBHTC to bridge, leverage and go beyond the
current research landscape to optimise the BBHTC’s transformational potential.
2 Method
The BBHTC operates in a complex space. Research relevant to the BBHTC mission moves
across an interface between the human and the built environment as a physical artefact and
as an expression of cultural identity, social attachments and reciprocities, and economic
activity. The BBHTC has a scope that works across scales from individual dwellings to
neighbourhoods to towns to cities. Effectively the BBHTC’s mission sits at the juncture
between building, development, housing and settlement systems, bio-physical systems and
built environments and social, economic and cultural activities, capacities and aspirations. It
recognises that the built environment can be a determinant of well-being across multiple
scales, from the individual to families, communities, regions and the nation. In turn, built
environments are shaped by a variety of internal and external influences, including:
demographic, market, economic, cultural and bio-physical trends driven out of local, regional,
national and global dynamics.
Within this scope there are a multiplicity of actors, decision-makers, policy and regulatory
players, resource holders and technologies. These influences are often dynamic and changing.
The success or failure of homes and built environments impact differentially across our life
cycle as we move from our infancy through childhood, youth, middle and old age. Notably our
built environments, and the materials and designs from which they are built, also have their
own life cycles. Regional populations and their economies ebb, flow and change. Some
communities and populations are exposed to, or are more vulnerable to, the impacts of poor
housing and built environments than others. Inequality, exclusion and stigmatisation are all
played out in our built environments, the housing stock and its distribution.
2BBHTC: Research Landscape
The scope of research relevant to the BBHTC mission is, therefore, inherently wide and
complex. That research is framed by a variety of disciplines, undertaken by diverse
organisations, and funded through a heterogeneous array of sectors, organisations and public
good science streams. This assemblage of research, relevant to the mission of building better
homes, towns and cities, is fragmented and dispersed. These characteristics present
significant challenges to any research landscaping exercise. The discussion following describes
how we have attempted to deal with those challenges within the context of this rapid review.
It sets out:
• The boundaries around the scope of research we have deemed relevant to the BBHTC
mission and the parameters of the landscaping exercise.
• How the research relevant to the BBHTC mission was identified, collated and interrogated.
• The analytic approach used to trace out the research landscape.
• Some of the limitations associated with the rapid review of the BBHTC-relevant research
landscape.
Scope of Research and Landscaping Parameters
For the purpose of this research landscaping exercise, we have focused on research
concerned with any of the following:
• dwelling design, construction and performance;
• urban development, design and management;
• neighbourhood design, performance and management;
• housing supply, demand and distribution;
• housing and community aspirations, tastes and consumption patterns;
• impacts of differential access to, costs of, and quality of housing, built environments and
their supportive infrastructure.
We have used two lenses to map the research landscape. The first lens views the research
landscape by way of the allocation of public research funding. The second lens explores the
research activity expressed into publications and post-graduate work both completed and in
progress. These two lenses generate separate analyses which triangulate each other. The
funding streams analysed are:
• Health Research Council (HRC);
• Public good research allocated by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
(MBIE) and other National Science Challenges;
• Royal Society’s Marsden Fund
• BRANZ Levy.
It should be noted that two significant sources of public funding are not included. The first is
research funding directed by the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) to universities,
including the funding associated with the Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF). The
second is the funding directed by government agencies to relevant operational research
3BBHTC: Research Landscape
undertaken in-house or contracted from external providers. In the case of tertiary research
funding, the chain between research funds directed into universities and specific research
activity is obscure. In the case of government agencies, the contract price of specific research
contracts and activities is not publicly available.
The inability to directly map specific chains of funding to research activities and outputs is the
major reason why this research landscape exercise has chosen to use both an investment lens
and a research activity lens. Research activity was explored in two categories:
1) Research outputs, specifically: journal articles, books and book chapters; research-based
publications contracted by central and local government and the non-profit sector; and,
reports by independent research organisations.
2) Postgraduate research activity represented in dissertation and theses or indicated as in
progress by tertiary institutions.
The temporal scope of the review has been limited to research funded during, commenced
or outputs completed from 2012. This timeframe is both an attempt to capture research that
could be considered having most direct currency and impact on the sector and to ensure the
feasibility of a rapid review.
Only research funding and research outputs publicly accessible have been analysed. Excluded
from the review were reports relating only to commercial buildings, monitoring data reports,
and strategic and policy reports.
Compilation of Funding and Activity Data
Research contracts awarded by funding agencies were identifed from public sources only. In
the case of the BRANZ Levy funding stream, the funding allocations are complicated by multi-
year funding, a myriad of contracts, and shifts in the total annual funding available which is
defined by the extent of levy revenue. Over the last few years BRANZ has increasingly made
its funding allocations both internally and externally transparent. It has provided a detailed
analysis for 2017/18. That analysis has been used for this landscaping exercise. Data for the
analysis of other funding streams have been taken from: the HRC’s annual reports, which list
new research contracts; MBIE’s science funding contracts database ; and the Royal Society Te
Apārangi’s annual list of Marsden award recipients.
Research activity was explored through research outputs and postgraduate research activity.
Research outputs were compiled as follows:
• For academic journal articles, books and book chapters, four academic research
databases have been utilised: Scopus, Index NZ, Academic Search Premier, and Discover
(Massey University library database search engine). Keywords extracted from the
BBHTC mission and the research landscape in which the challenge operates were used
to search these databases.
4BBHTC: Research Landscape
• For central and local government research outputs were identified through searching
of websites. The websites of the following central government agencies were searched:
o Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and SUPERU
o Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE)
o The Treasury
o Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ)
o Ministry of Transport (MoT) and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA)
o Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA)
o Statistics New Zealand
o Office of the Auditor General
o Productivity Commission of New Zealand
o Commission for Financial Capability
For independent research organisations (IROs) and consultancies, research outputs were also
identified through website searches. Only research that was released to the public was
included. Research reports that were only announced in media releases and were not publicly
available were not included. Research organisation considered to have contributed relevant
research were the following:
• New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER)
• WSP Opus NZ
• Centre for Research Evaluation and Social Assessment (CRESA)
• Motu
• Business and Economic Research Limited (BERL)
• BRANZ
• TERNZ
• Mackie Research
Research activity represented in postgraduate research was compiled through website and
online database searches. Relevant departments within these institutions were also
contacted by phone or email to attain information on current postgraduate students
conducting research at doctoral and masters level in areas of relevance to BBHTC. Major
universities and tertiary institutes with searchable online databases of postgraduate theses
were used. Other searchable databases used to search for relevant theses were
‘nzresearch.org.nz’ and Google Scholar. Tertiary education institutes with databases that
were searched included:
• Auckland University of Technology
• Lincoln University
• Massey University
• Unitec Institute of Technology
• University of Auckland
• University of Waikato
• University of Canterbury
• University of Otago
5BBHTC: Research Landscape
• Victoria University of Wellington
A key word approach was used across these sources as follows: Building Consent; Built
Environment; Building Performance; Children; Community Formation; Community housing;
Construction; Covenants; Disability; Home Ownership; Homelessness; Housing &
Health/Wellbeing; Housing Affordability; Housing Demand; Housing Experience; Housing
Finance; Housing Market; Housing Policy; Housing Supply; Housing Taste/Preference/Choice;
Infrastructure; Intensification/Compact Housing; Land Use Planning; Maori Housing; Master
Planning; Neighbourhood Performance; New Settlers Housing; Older People; Pacific Housing;
Papakainga; Renting; Resilience; Resource Management Act (RMA); Streets/Streetscapes;
Sustainability; Tenure Security; Transport; Universal Design; Urban Design; Urban
Development; Urban Governance; Urban Systems; Young People.
Interrogation and Capture of Funding and Activity Data
The capture and interrogation of information from different sources inevitably involved some
variation. It was, however, standardised as much as possible through the use of Excel with
drop-down codes assigned to key variables. Each funding stream had a dedicated sheet. The
detail available varied from funding stream to funding stream. The BRANZ Levy funding was
already categorised and those categories, and funding amounts associated with each, were
used in the analysis. In the capture of MBIE, Marsden, HRC and other relevant national science
challenge funded programmes, the data sources allowed to a greater or lesser extent the
programme lead organisations, funding, title, timing and, in some cases, descriptions.
Separate sheets were used for research outputs and the postgraduate research activity
respectively. The former, while entered separately according to the nature to the type of the
output, used a standard set of variables with fixed codes supplemented by opportunity to
enter free-text where fixed codes proved inadequate.
It should be noted that some adjustments in the fixed codes were made after an initial period
of coding which allowed us to embed additional codes emerging in the free-text.
Because of the complexity and diversity of the research falling within the scope and landscape
parameters, we were hesitant to prematurely limit too closely the number of variables related
to the substantive focus and scope of each research output, activity or funded programme. A
number of codes around substantive focus could be used. The first captured judgements
around the primary focus of the research, but there were opportunities to code two
‘additional research focus’ variables and a further ‘other research focus’ as well as a free-text
column for additional notes.
Many variables such as authorship or postgraduate, commissioning or funding agencies,
research organisation or affiliation, output or programme titles, were easily established.
Substantive decisions around focus were more difficult. Coding typically used a traditional
content analysis approach in which explicit referencing in the title, abstract, programme
6BBHTC: Research Landscape
description, executive summary or, in some cases, closer reading of a report text was
required.
Analytic Approach and Interpretation
This rapid review is the first of its kind in relation to the landscape of research relevant to the
BBHTC mission. That, and the considerable scope of the BBHTC already noted, meant that we
did not have at our disposal an existing, well-tested analytic framework which could be
robustly applied to the landscaping exercise. To some extent, then, the research landscape
exercise required an inductive approach. The use of free-text and multiple variables allowed
for the coding of research focus, as outlined in the previous section, are manifestations of
that imperative.
As a consequence of this approach, the initial coding of research focus into categories,
‘primary’, ‘additional’ and ‘other’, led to a multiplicity of associated codes requiring some
‘bundling’ if detail was not to submerge the landscape terrain. Th ‘bundling’ of research focus
was undertaken by a single individual to promote consistency. That process involved focusing
on the ‘primary focus’ variable, reviewing the additional and other focus variables and
reviewing any free-text against each output and activity item. The resultant patterns were
reviewed by other team members.
In the course of this inductive analytic process, it became clear that some research activities,
outputs and funding could be defined in terms of not only a substantive issue or dynamic, but
the operation of those issues or dynamics in relation to explicitly specified population groups
or sets of people sharing a particular experience (for example, homelessness). The patterns
relating to age and ethnicity were deemed to enrich our understanding of the research
landscape. Consequently, they have been drawn out as an element of the research landscape.
Similarly, attention was given to explicit referencing of specific locational preoccupations
within research outputs and activity. Determinations for both categories involved seeking
such references s from the primary focus, additional focus, other and free-text variables.
Limitations and Caution
This landscaping exercise is not a funding audit nor is it a meta-analysis or a traditional
literature review. It is not designed to make any statement around the quality, value-for-
money or transformational impact of any specific research programme or portfolio of
research. Rather it is designed to trace the terrain of the research, identifying its spread,
concentrations and hollows. It does so in relation to both the substantive focus of identified
research as well as population and locational focus.
It must also be noted that this research landscape exercise was undertaken as a form of rapid
review. Like all rapid reviews, it is an evidential synthesis undertaken within a short timeframe
and intended to make information available as a timely input into decision-making. The
7BBHTC: Research Landscape
research takes an inductionist approach because it represents a first attempt to collect and
consider research of considerable scope and diversity. Care, therefore, must be taken with
the findings.
The findings should be considered as providing a representation of the landscape and not a
definitive mapping or a precise measurement of the research landscape’s contours. The
landscaping exercise has identified a considerable number of programmes, research outputs
and activities that appear, prima facie, relevant to BBHTC’s mission. This compilation and its
subsequent analysis have been based on information available during the timeframe. There
may be research that is not publicly available or discoverable through the processes
implemented in this exercise. Similarly, coding and the subsequent bundling of codes is a well-
established process to generate patterns through induction. Those processes were largely,
although not always, undertaken with reference to a limited range of evidence: titles,
abstracts, descriptions and executive summaries. Coding based on ethnicity and life-stage and
other population groups referenced in those reviewed elements inevitably means that non-
referenced groups cannot be coded. Consequently, populations referenced in a report text
but not in titles, abstracts, descriptions and executive summaries will be under-represented.
In addition to the issues noted above, it is important to highlight some idiosyncrasies around
the population focus data, especially in relation to research outputs. Some programmes, in
some cases with relatively limited funding, have generated considerable numbers of research
outputs around certain population groups – younger people, Māori, and older people in
particular. This should not be interpreted as providing a definitive understanding of the
experiences of those populations. Typically, the research targeting population groups are
focused on a narrowly defined aspect or element of those populations’ experience of built
environments or built environment related outcomes. Consequently, while these population
groups may appear to be the focus of considerable research activity, these outputs are often
generated by a relatively few programmes, with narrow areas of research interest.
Finally, the influence of BRANZ Levy on the shape of the landscape would be even more
pronounced if each annual funding tranche from BRANZ had been incorporated. The annual
BRANZ Levy investment since 2012 is in excess of funds delivered into the sector through
public good science. The concentration on the building industry and construction would be
even more pronounced and the aggregate analysis in Section 3 should be read with that in
mind.
3 Funding Lens on the Research Landscape
The following two sections present the outcomes of the data analysis. This first section
provides the analysis via the inputs lens, which involved a review of the major funding bodies’
investment into recent or active research directly relevant to building better homes, towns
and cities.
8BBHTC: Research Landscape
The major research funds active in this area are identified in Table 1. It should be noted that
one National Science Challenge has funded one research programme that directly resonates
with the BBHTC. Namely, the Ageing Well National Science Challenge, which has a programme
exploring the impact of life in the rental sector on older people, the implications of structural
ageing, and New Zealand’s tenure revolution.
It should be noted that the funding streams vary temporally and, as previously noted, some
public funding is excluded altogether. This funding should, therefore, be treated as a
representation of part of the funding pool.
Funds $ Millions (NZ)
Ageing Well NSC 1.9
MBIE science (2012 onwards) 30.5
Heath Research Council (2012 onwards) 13.6
Marsden programmes (2012 onwards) 3.6
BRANZ (2017-18) 10.6
Total Funding Analysed 60.2
Table 1: A table displaying the identified funders and funding amounts of research related to
the BBHTC Mission. Note: the Ministry for Environment’s sustainability fund was
reviewed, there were no directly relevant studies identified.
The analysis is based on a total of at $60.2 million (NZD) identified as having been allocated
to research relevant to the BBHTC mission in the past six years, excluding the BBHTC’s funding.
MBIE Science Funding
The Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has been a major funder of
research related to housing, the built environment and urban systems, amongst other
relevant topics. $30.5 million of funding has been identified from programmes administered
in the public good science fund. by MBIE since 2012. The programmes identified were the
Health and Society Targeted Funding and the Catalyst and Endeavour Funding streams
(Appendix 1).
Figure 1: MBIE funded research relevant to BBHTC ($ million)
9BBHTC: Research Landscape
Almost two-fifths (39%) of the funding was attached to programmes specifically identifying a
key target population or cultural group. This funding is displayed in Figure 2 categorised by
targeted population. Age groups, and in particular younger and older populations, were the
focus of $5.45m of research funding. The $2.82m of funding related to Māori urban
governance relates to a single four-year research programme at the University of Canterbury
starting in 2017 and investigating the use of map-based tools for community and Rūnanga-
led sustainable town planning in small and medium settlements in New Zealand.
presents an analysis of MBIE public good science investment against key programmatic
themes. The majority of MBIE funding allocation since 2012 has been into the theme of ‘urban
governance, performance and planning’ at $13.22 million. However, it is important to note
that $10.6 million of funding in this theme was allocated to a single research programme,
‘Resilient Urban Futures’, which ran between 2012 and 2016. It is also important to note that
contracts were identified by one topic descriptor only, so for example Māori urban
governance research conducted within the Resilient Urban Futures programme appears
under ‘urban governance, performance and planning’ and not ‘Māori and urban governance’.
Other areas which have been subject to significant funding are: materials and indoor comfort
($4.37m), neighbourhoods and active transport ($3.48m), health and housing ($3.08m), and
Māori and urban governance ($2.82m).
Downsizing and
housing fit, $1.87 Older people and dwelling
resilience, $0.92
Health and
housing, $3.08
Affordable
Urban housing, $0.66
governance,
performance and Intensification,
planning, $13.22 $0.08
Maori and urban
governance,
$2.82
Materials indoor
comfort, $4.37
Neighbourhoods and
active transport, $3.48
Figure 1: MBIE funded research relevant to BBHTC ($ million)
10BBHTC: Research Landscape
Almost two-fifths (39%) of the funding was attached to programmes specifically identifying a
key target population or cultural group. This funding is displayed in Figure 2 categorised by
targeted population. Age groups, and in particular younger and older populations, were the
focus of $5.45m of research funding. The $2.82m of funding related to Māori urban
governance relates to a single four-year research programme at the University of Canterbury
starting in 2017 and investigating the use of map-based tools for community and Rūnanga-
led sustainable town planning in small and medium settlements in New Zealand.
Young people
(Active Travel),
Homelesss, $2.92
$2.50
Pacific, $0.66
Maori (urban
Older people, $2.95 governance), $2.82
Figure 2: MBIE research targeted to the experience, conditions, world views or outcomes for specific groups by
funding ($million)
The largest recipient of population-specific funding was for research investigating the needs
and housing requirements of older people, with five projects totalling $2.95m over the past
five years focussing on this age cohort. This reflects two successive programmes funded from
the now defunct Health and Society portfolio – the funding for which was subsequently
mapped to the Ageing Well National Science Challenge. $1.9 million of the Ageing Well
National Science Challenge has an explicit housing related focus through the Life in Rent
research programme.
Health Research Council
The Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC) manages the government’s investment in
health research. As part of its vision to improve the health and wellbeing of all New
Zealanders, housing and neighbourhood built environment research has seen an investment
11BBHTC: Research Landscape
of $13.55 million since 2012 (Appendix 2). This funding tends to focus on establishing
associations between the design, condition or access to different dwellings, neighbourhoods
or urban built environments and the manifestation of various illnesses and associated rates
of mortality. Accordingly, Figure 3 shows that the majority of research funded by the HRC was
directed at the connections between housing conditions and health, with the health of
children seeing the most funding.
12BBHTC: Research Landscape
Figure 4 also shows the funding amounts from HRC associated with specific population
groups. Almost half (48.5 percent) was associated with analysing experiences and outcomes
for children associated with housing, urban and neighbourhood environments. Another 27
percent of funded research combined multiple populations and groups. Again it is important
to note that although the primary focus might be ‘children’ or ‘young people’, other
population groups might also be subject to analysis including sub-populations. Among young
people there may be analysis of Pacific young people or Māori, for instance. Where there is
explicit referencing of cross-population analysis these are categorised as multiple populations
in Figure 4. The young people and disabled/ older people categories included a single project
in each category and both relate to neighbourhood built environments and mobility (and for
the young people also physical activity).
Housing and Children's health $4.94
Housing and Health $3.75
Neighbourhood built environments, active transport
$2.39
and health
Health and Urban Design (incl active transport) $1.34
Housing hazards and Maori $0.79
Crowding and Health $0.30
Urban design and mental health $0.02
Papakainga, health, safety and ancestral lands $0.02
$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00
Figure 3: HRC funded research relevant to BBHTC ($ million)
13BBHTC: Research Landscape
Children, Maori, and Pacific, $0.30
Maori, $0.83
Disabled and Older People,
$1.19
Young People,
$1.20
Children, $6.28
Multiple population
groups, $3.75
Figure 4: HRC research targeted to the experience, conditions, world views or outcomes for specific groups by
funding ($ million)
Marsden Funding
In 2017 a total of 133 research projects were funded through the Royal Society’s Marsden
Fund amounting to $84.6 million in research funding (Appendix 3). The contribution of the
Royal Society’s Marsden Funding to research areas of relevance to the BBHTC mission has
been relatively small. From a review of relevant research since 2012, there was around $3.64
million of current funding identified. This research was spread over six programmes, all
starting from 2016 onwards.
Figure 5 shows the variety of BBHTC-relevant research topics receiving Marsden research
funding. Around 46% of that funding is encompassed by two programmes investigating the
housing experiences and outcomes for vulnerable individuals and households, namely, ex-
prisoners and rental evictees. Two other programmes investigating the nexus between
communities and energy sustainability initiatives respectively were awarded a combined
$0.93 million of the funding. The other programmes recently receiving Marsden grants
related to the BBHTC mission were investigating housing market property forecasts and the
impact of Māori culture on urban design.
14BBHTC: Research Landscape
Maori Urban design,
$0.30
Energy - Urban and
Community, $0.93
Stable Housing for Ex-
Prisoners, $0.85
Housing Market -
Property Forecasts ,
$0.71
Rental Eviction Discourse and
Representation, $0.85
Figure 5: Marsden current relevant research programmes ($ million)
Past funding has included demographic analysis undertaken by a team led by Dr Natalie
Jackson that is not tied specifically to BBHTC but has profound implications. That funding has
been excluded from this analysis because the funding was not explicitly directed to BBHTC
related outcomes. Dr Jackson is a member of the Ageing Well Life in Rent programme and her
analysis in that context has similar implications for New Zealand’s housing futures and the
futures of rural, provincial and urban areas. The latter demographic analysis is disaggregated
according to tenure, cohort, territorial authorities, Māori, Pacific, and new settler
populations.
BRANZ
The BRANZ Levy funds internal research programmes as well as a set of contestable research
allocations. This analysis relates to the funding for 2017/18 year only. Excluded from this
analysis are BRANZ activities related to knowledge exchange and industry engagement. With
the exception of the latter, the remaining research investment of $10.58 million of funding
has been deemed BBHTC relevant research. That $10.58 million of funding is broadly allocated
evenly internally and externally. Figure 6 shows, unsurprisingly, that BRANZ Levy funding
shows a considerable funding commitment to the building industry’s production of buildings
and productivity. Consistent with a long tradition of concern with thermal performance and
energy consumption, there is a significant allocation to research concerned with the indoor
15BBHTC: Research Landscape
performance of buildings. The emergence of medium density residential typologies is evident
in the $1.77 million allocated to research around building medium density housing.
Techniques and Technologies for Environmental
Improving Existing buildings, $0.16 sustainability, $0.74
Medium Density
Housing Needs and Housing, $1.77
Settlements, $0.07
Indoor Performance,
$1.74 Industry Productivity,
$1.09
Industry Producing Better
Buildings, $5.03
Figure 6: BRANZ research funding relevant to BBHTC ($ million) 2017/18
A Research Landscape through the Funding Lens
It has been noted that these funding streams vary temporally and do not constitute all public
funding of research that may be relevant to the BBHTC mission. Nevertheless, together these
funding streams comprise a significant amount of funding in absolute terms. An aggregate
analysis provides, then, an important insight into the BBHTC relevant research landscape. Of
the total $60.2 million of funding encompassed in this exercise the most significant allocations
relate to: Urban governance, performance, planning and design ($16.3m); and, Health
outcomes related to housing conditions and the design and performance of buildings and
urban spaces ($14.2m) (Figure 7).
About $29 million of the total $60.2 million of funding identified is attached explicitly to the
experiences or world view of specific populations or cultural groups (Error! Reference source
not found.). Some populations or groups are attached to one or two relatively large
programmes, some of which are very narrow in focus. For instance, research explicitly related
to young people is dominated by a programme on built environments and active transport.
HRC allocations are particularly important in relation to research funding that is explicitly tied
to a population. This is consistent with epidemiological methods and public health research
methods.
16BBHTC: Research Landscape
Error! Reference source not found. Figure 7: Key funders' allocation for BBHTC relevant research by primary
population target
4 A Research Activity Lens on the Research
Landscape
There is research funding allocated to universities and through in-house or contracted work
that is not captured in the research funding analysis because the funding stream and its
association with BBHTC relevant research is not clearly mapped. For that reason, we have
employed another lens to illuminate the BBHTC relevant landscape – that is, the lens of
research activity. Research activity embraces two components: research publications and
postgraduate research activity. Discussion is divided into two main sections; the first deals
with research publications and the second with postgraduate research activity in progress or
completed from 2012.
Research publications include those in academic journals, books and book chapters but also
research-based reports and papers. The critical criteria for inclusion in this analysis is that the
research report is publicly available and deals explicitly with one of the following domains:
• dwelling design, construction and performance;
• urban development, design and management;
• neighbourhood design, performance and management;
• housing supply, demand and distribution;
• housing and community aspirations, tastes and consumption patterns;
• impacts of differential access to, costs of, and quality of housing, built environments and
their supportive infrastructure.
It should be noted that there are a variety of research and monitoring programmes and big
datasets that have implications for the dynamics which shape built environments or data that
provides some insight into aspects of housing consumption. Those include statistical
collections undertaken by Statistics New Zealand, reporting of administrative data such as
rental bonds and levels, broader research into demographic change, living standards, income
distribution, benefit take-up, and a range of longitudinal studies. These are excluded from the
analysis of research activity although some research outputs included in this analysis use data
from those sources.
Research Publications
This section considers the research outputs of a broad range of research-generating entities.
The review involved database and website searches for relevant journal articles, books and
17BBHTC: Research Landscape
book chapters, central and local government publications and reports by IROs published
independently. In total, 408 research outputs were identified that were publicly available and
generated in the last five years. Figure 8 indicates that those research outputs were generated
by a diversity of research providers. A substantial number of reports came from independent
research organisations. This is not surprising given that BRANZ is an independent research
organisation as well as a funder of research through the BRANZ Levy. Seventy-nine BRANZ
reports were included in the landscape exercise while twenty from the Centre for Research
Evaluation and Social Assessment (CRESA) were included, followed by Motu with thirteen.
Universities generated some 135 outputs with consultancies delivering forty-eight. Central
government agencies or bodies published forty-four reports and councils nineteen.
CRI, 2 Not for profit, 9
Industry Peak Body, 1
Council, 19
Government
Agency/Body, 44
Independent Research
Organisation, 151
Consultancy, 48
University, 135
Figure 8: Research outputs by lead author's research provider type (n=408)
Figure 9 shows the diversity of research providers manifest in a variety of different publication
types ranging from academic journals and books to technical and research reports. The most
common publication types were academic journals, books and book chapters, followed by
BRANZ levy reports and commissioned research reports. Some 44 reports from government
agencies and bodies were included in the review.
About a quarter of the included research outputs (96) have a focus on a particular location in
New Zealand. Auckland (51), followed by Christchurch (11), then the Western Bay of Plenty
(10) were the most common study locations identified. About 17% of the total research
outputs identified are focussed on a major urban centre in New Zealand. The Western Bay of
Plenty sub-region’s prominence reflects a combination of the Smartgrowth Initiative funded
18BBHTC: Research Landscape
by councils and the Life in Rent Ageing Well NSC programme which has a strong local presence
(Figure 10).
19BBHTC: Research Landscape
Research provider Research provider report -
report, 28 Stakeholder Targeted, 16
Not for profit internal BRANZ Levy Report,
research report, 7 106
Journal/Chapter, 112
Comissioned research
report, 66
Industry Magazine, 7
Council research
Government agency
report, 19
research report, 48
Figure 9: Research outputs categorised by publication type (n=409)
Invercargill, 1 Manawatu, 1 Palmerston North, 1 Queenstown , 1
Upper North
Dunedin, 1
Island, 1
Waimakariri, 1
Tauranga, 2
Canterbury, 3
Auckland, 51
Northland, 4
Wellington, 8
Western Bay of
Plenty Sub-region, 10
Christchurch, 11
Figure 10: Locational focus of research outputs (n=96)
20BBHTC: Research Landscape
About a fifth (81 research outputs) reference a population or cultural experience of built
environments in their title, abstract or executive summary (Figure 11). Older people are the
population group referenced most frequently and Māori are the most commonly referenced
cultural group. Children have been the focus of fourteen reports related to the BBHTC mission
and the homeless have been the focus of seven. Despite the importance of built environments
to disabled people’s independence and functionality there is little direct exploration of their
experiences. This is consistent with the continued exclusion of accessibility from the Building
Code for dwellings.
Figure 11: The primary population referenced in research outputs (n=81)
Figure 12 shows the research focus the publication and reports. This, like the research funding
analysis, highlights the strong focus on building performance and construction. There are also
significant clusters of research concerned with the building industry, its capacity, capability
and productivity, and its current failure to meet the demand for housing. Other clusters of
research output have been transport and its relation to urban design, and rental housing and
experiences of renting.
The significant influence of BRANZ’s funding of projects both internally and externally is
closely associated with the focus on construction and building performance. It should be
noted that the influence of BRANZ Levy on the shape of the landscape would be even more
pronounced if each annual funding tranche had been incorporated. The annual BRANZ Levy
investment since 2012 is in excess of funds delivered into the sector through public good
science. The connection between health and housing has been an area of particular interest
within academic research. Transport research is associated with central government as well
21BBHTC: Research Landscape
as local and regional government interests. Meanwhile, rental housing has generated a
significant number of outputs despite fragmented funding.
40
35
30
Number of Outputs
25
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 12: Primary research focus of BBHTC relevant research outputs (n=409)
Postgraduate Research Activity
The review of postgraduate research activity found 260 students involved in research relevant
to the BBHTC mission since 2012 (Appendix 5). Of these students, 165 were at the masters-
level and 95 were at the doctoral-level. Table 2 sets out the university affiliation of those
postgraduate students.
Figure 13 show the primary research topics of each of the included theses. Similar to other
research outputs, there is a strong focus on design within postgraduate research, both urban
and architectural design. The concentration of activity in urban design is also consistent with
the funding profile previously reported and the structure of university teaching. Following
urban design, transport is an area of significant postgraduate-level research. Research related
22BBHTC: Research Landscape
to intensification most commonly focussed on urban design solutions for building at higher
densities in low-density suburbs.
University Postgraduate Researchers
Auckland University of Technology 24
Lincoln University 27
Massey University 20
Unitec Institute of Technology 38
University of Auckland 40
University of Canterbury 18
University of Otago 39
University of Waikato 14
Victoria University of Wellington 42
Table 2: A table showing the number of postgraduate researchers working or have worked on topics related to
the BBHTC mission (n=260)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 13: Postgraduate primary research areas (n=260)
23BBHTC: Research Landscape
Around a third of postgraduate research made reference to an explicit focus on a specific
location, with the most common location being either Auckland or Christchurch (Figure 14).
Themes that have more commonly seen investigation with reference to Auckland relate to
housing affordability, transport and infrastructure, urban planning and governance, and
urban intensification. Much of the research related to Christchurch involves planning and
design responses to the post-earthquake rebuild process. Small towns and regional New
Zealand have been less of a locational focus. Despite falling populations and the challenges
to settlements, housing and infrastructure, only one study (Clutha) focuses on that dynamic.
Hamilton, 1 Hawkes Bay, 1 Nelson, 1 Waitaki, 1
Clutha, 1
Canterbury, 1 Waikato…
Northland, 1
New Plymouth, 1
Otaki, 1
Dunedin, 5
Auckland, 44
Wellington, 7
Christchurch, 22
Figure 14: Postgraduate research locational focus (n=88)
Almost a quarter (about 23%) of the research work undertaken by postgraduates referred
explicitly to a population group, generally either and ethnic group or an age group. The
populations most commonly referred to were Māori (13), older people (12), young people
(10), children (10) and Pacific people (5) (Figure 15).
24BBHTC: Research Landscape
New settlers, 1 Sole parents, 1 Sole occupants, 1
Disabled people, 2
Māori, 13
Homeless, 5
Pacific, 5
Older People, 12
Children, 10
Young People, 10
Figure 15: Postgraduate Research - Target Populations (n=60)
Groups who shared common experiences, such as homelessness or disability, were much less
researched. Several of the postgraduate outputs referencing older people examined how this
group experienced aging in different residential spaces and how these spaces could be better
designed to accommodate them. Five of the studies referencing Māori people had an explicit
focus on incorporating Māori cultural understandings, ideas and principles into contemporary
urban designs. The most common areas of research referencing either children or young
people in general involved studies of their perceptions of built environments and the types
and levels of physical activity they routinely undertake in different spaces.
5 A Landscape of Lumps and Chasms
Considering the research landscape as a whole, there are a number of conclusions that can
be drawn. Firstly, consistent with previous scoping of research around buildings, housing and
settlements, the research platform is characterised by:
• fragmentation and siloing;
25BBHTC: Research Landscape
• poor integration of research disciplines and skills;
• a diversity of research providers and research products;
• a significant amount of research commissioned by government agencies, universities and
public good science funding.
Much of the fragmentation and diversity, including concentrations of research, reflect the
nature of funding available to researchers. Looking across the different types of research
inputs and outputs included in this review there is a considerable consistency. Following the
major areas of funding, research outputs are currently dominated by studies of:
• construction and building performance;
• building industry capacity, capability and productivity concerns;
• urban design and urban governance;
• health and housing.
There is also considerable reporting on an unmet demand for housing in New Zealand and
associated patterns of declining affordability, homelessness and overcrowding. There would
seem to be an oversupply of evidence of the existence of these trends but a shortfall of
research providing practical examples of solutions. At the same time, there exists an
abundance of postgraduate research exploring urban design solutions related to increasing
densities and compact housing. While there seems to be innovation at the design-level, there
is much less research addressing planning issues with implementing new designs. So with a
lot of work done or in the pipeline in this area, the question of why these problems are not
solved arises.
Transport issues are a prominent topic of post-graduate research outputs. This research is
commonly associated with central government as well as local and regional government
interests. However, there remains a lack of information regarding diverse transport modes,
changing needs over the lifecycle, and the connecting of daily activities – work, play, schooling
and service access. Rental housing is another area of significant research activity. The rental
sector, rental housing quality and the experiences of tenants have generated a significant
number of outputs. This is despite fragmented funding.
Concentrations of research activity and output also reflect the institutional commitments of
the universities. Architecture, planning, and health schools have driven significant
concentrations of research on urban design, urban governance and the impacts of housing
and the built environment on health. This concentration of research is evident both as
postgraduate study (masters and PhD) and internally or externally funded research from
these schools.
26BBHTC: Research Landscape
In relation to explicit focus on particular populations, the research landscape can be
characterised as follows:
• Māori and older people respectively attract the interests of researchers, but this reflects
a set of very small projects or one or two larger programmes;
• Health funding and health pre-occupations explain a significant concentration of funding
directed to children and active transport respectively;
• Research about young people is dominated by research into active transport and young
people’s health outcomes.
Despite Māori emerging as a topic attracting considerable attention and research activity, the
research platform tends to be dominated by epistemological concerns, design, urban
governance, and housing related health burdens. There seems to be limited attention given
to:
• The diversity of Māori housing supply or consumption in the context of urban, provincial
and rural environments;
• The role of Māori in the building industry and industry futures;
• The changing face of Māori and housing driven by population ageing, opportunities
presented by the demographic dividend, and inequality.
The very limited research explicitly referencing Pacific peoples is especially significant as
Pacific peoples have a demographic dividend that can be supported or wasted. As a
population group over-represented in measures of high deprivation and poverty, Pacific
peoples are particularly vulnerable to, and dependent on, poor rental housing in under-
supplied markets. There is a similar neglect of disabled people’s housing experiences and
needs, including those with mental health problems. Less obvious is that the current
regulatory system (and consequently design and build tools) fails to ensure that disabled
people have access to functional dwellings or neighbourhood environments.
Research on young people is currently narrowly focussed. The transitional nature of young
people’s housing is neglected despite the significant changes in inter-generational dynamics
and the housing system’s provision, or lack of it, for stable housing trajectories. There is a lack
of research on many aspects of younger people’s experience of urban spaces and housing.
Affordable and stable housing is essential for this group if they are to be productive, yet most
of the research involving young people focuses on the health benefits of active transport.
Older people have attracted significant attention from some programmes (many of which are
now complete) – most notably those funded through the public good science funding
configured in the now defunct Health and Society portfolio. However, older people’s housing
futures, particularly in combination with regional change and structural ageing, is still
neglected given its profound impacts. The issues noted for disabled people also apply here.
Most of the research included in this review did not have a specific locational focus. Around
a quarter of research publications and a third of postgraduate activity focused on a particular
27You can also read
