Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Ning Gu
 -- 1981 2023-09-25 04:02:12 |
2 layout
Jessie Wu
 -3 word(s) 1978 2023-09-25 04:12:42 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Gu, N.; Soltani, S.; London, K.; Pablo, Z.; Davis, A. Digital Collaboration in Mixed-Use Housing Developments. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49580 (accessed on 09 July 2024).
Gu N, Soltani S, London K, Pablo Z, Davis A. Digital Collaboration in Mixed-Use Housing Developments. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49580. Accessed July 09, 2024.
Gu, Ning, Sahar Soltani, Kerry London, Zelinna Pablo, Aaron Davis. "Digital Collaboration in Mixed-Use Housing Developments" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49580 (accessed July 09, 2024).
Gu, N., Soltani, S., London, K., Pablo, Z., & Davis, A. (2023, September 25). Digital Collaboration in Mixed-Use Housing Developments. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/49580
Gu, Ning, et al. "Digital Collaboration in Mixed-Use Housing Developments." Encyclopedia. Web. 25 September, 2023.
Digital Collaboration in Mixed-Use Housing Developments
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/buildings13092229

Mixed-use development—with a diverse mix of residential, retail, commercial, social, and entertainment spaces all in one structure—has been recognised as an optimal solution to numerous urban challenges, including social, economic, and environmental ones. Such multifaceted programs can promote social equity and inclusiveness by offering a variety of housing options to people with a wide range of economic abilities. These potential social benefits of bringing a diverse range of amenities and services together can lead to enhanced safety and increased movement independence, especially for socially disadvantaged groups.

digital collaboration mixed-use housing construction management

1. Mixed-Use Housing Developments and Social Challenges in Australia

In recent years, cities globally have focused on reducing their environmental impact while also seeking to catalyse social sustainability [1]. Many cities, particularly in Australia and the United States, have instigated policies to consolidate urban footprints through the development of medium- and high-density housing in inner urban areas to achieve this goal [2][3][4]. Some literature argues that social aspects have been largely ignored in the way housing policy is developed [5][6], while others highlight that governments have tried unsuccessfully to integrate social sustainability into housing policy [7][8]. One of the key vehicles governments have utilised to address social sustainability in housing is pursuing an affordability agenda based on the development of periurban areas [3]. There is, however, growing recognition in the literature of the significant strain this development places on infrastructure [3][9] and its impact on health and well-being [10][11][12][13][14].
One of these social challenges is ageing. The global population is ageing at an unprecedented rate, with current estimates suggesting 21.1% of the global population will be aged 60 years or over by 2050 [15]. In Australia, this figure is estimated to be 22% by 2057 and reach 25% by 2097 [16]. This rapid growth brings significant challenges to the provision of appropriate housing and urban environments for the older demographic. Higher-density housing has shown a positive impact on the health and well-being of older people, but questions remain as to whether apartment living is adequately satisfying their physical needs [17]. Although traditionally overlooked in housing policy development [18], housing people with disabilities such as movement difficulties has become another challenge to be addressed in Australia since the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) in 2013. Accommodation options for people with disabilities have typically been limited to family support, institutionalisation, social housing, or supplies from the private rental market [18][19][20][21]. The NDIS, however, provides people with disabilities significant financial resources to pursue new housing opportunities [22][23]. Under the above context, a number of new approaches have emerged for the development of housing, from the broader guidelines as to how cities should be developed [24][25][26] to specific housing models through collaborative planning and community development, such as those seen in cohousing [27][28] and to industry-focused guidelines such as those of designing for people with physical disabilities [29][30].
Mixed-use developments are primarily known as a response to the detrimental impact of urban sprawling, such as car dependency, traffic congestion, and air pollution [31], while also contributing to financial viability by diversifying the assets within one specific unit or area [32]. Mixed-use housing developments, by combining residential and a diverse range of nonresidential spaces under one (often vertical) structure, can perform a critical role in mitigating social challenges across multiple scales [33][34]. Such agglomerations, particularly in high-rise developments, are associated with positive impacts such as providing social cohesion [35], a sense of community [36][37], social support [35][38], social interaction [39][40], and social well-being and mental health [41]. These potentials are created by bringing the range of amenities and services together, which are especially beneficial to vulnerable or disadvantaged groups such as older people and people with physical disabilities, leading to enhanced safety and increased movement independence [31]. Although mixed-use housing developments have gained growing interest in the literature, practical examples in the sector are very scarce. An example of such a structure is Kampung Admiralty (https://architectureau.com/articles/kampung-admiralty, accessed on 12 April 2023) in Singapore, which offers a community hub in the form of an integrated building function designed to meet the needs of a variety of social groups, especially older people. The amenities and different functions embedded in the building allow them to be socially and physically independent and provide opportunities for leisure, fitness, and other voluntary activities. Another similar initiative in terms of design and functions is Inspir Carnegie Hill (https://handelarchitects.com/project/inspir-manhattan, accessed on 12 April 2023), a high-rise building in the US for housing and supporting older people and people with movement difficulties.
Social challenges for housing developments in Australia have been used as a basis to identify a suitable case study for the research investigation. U city, being the only vertical mixed-use housing development of its kind and scale in the country, provides us with unique access to a multifaceted network of stakeholders and organisations involved during its development and construction. Compared to conventional single-use projects, the collaborative processes in mixed-use housing projects are much more complex, and this heightened level of complexity could be better facilitated through digital collaboration.

2. Digital Collaborative Processes in Building and Construction

As building projects become increasingly complex, collaborative practices are becoming increasingly important in the building and construction industry [1][42] as they involve large and diverse project teams, including both professional stakeholders and end-users [43]. Despite this important role, there is less consensus in the literature on the definition of collaboration. Studies also use alternative terms for collaboration in the context of construction research and practice, such as partnership [44], team integration [45], etc. Collaboration is suggested to be a key enabler for addressing the fragmentations in housing construction [42][46], as it ensures the successful delivery of a complex building project entwined with highly effective coordination among the stakeholders across the entire value chain.
Groundwork of defining and understanding collaboration in the building and construction industry has been conducted through comprehensive empirical and theoretical developments. Earlier research defines collaboration as an inter-organisational relationship that is driven by a shared vision between all agents with shared responsibilities, risks, and rewards [47]. Schöttle and Haghsheno [47] argue in order for a new and collaborative project culture to be established, it needs to be based upon trust and transparency, as well as mutual problem-solving through interactive processes. In another closely related work, Xue and Shen [48] define collaboration in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) context to be shaped through human behaviours that are highly dependent on the participants’ perceptions of the shared value. In this definition, collaboration is sustained through a strong organisational culture and long-term relationships between team members, with a great emphasis on relational contracting in adverbial conflict resolution.
As the whole AEC industry is significantly influenced by digitalisation, industrialisation, and mechanisation, the effects of their resulting changes in collaboration need to be explored in relation to both the inner- and inter-organisational relationships as to how their collaboration and coordination will benefit from these transitions. In this context, digital collaboration is a key focus. Digital collaboration platforms such as web-based project management applications and network technologies have been extensively studied in the context of construction management for planning and coordination [49][50]. Although such digital platforms are effective for the exchange of project information among different participants, their common applications are limited to scheduling and workflow management suitable for specific stages such as procurement [49], and data being exchanged are mainly around 2D drawings and documents [51]. The integration or inclusion of these earlier tools in the more recent building information modelling (BIM) platforms has been effective in supporting the collaboration of the project team across different design and construction stages. The BIM approach to digital collaboration integrates structured, multidisciplinary data across a building’s entire lifecycle—from planning and design to construction and operation—based on a 3D digital model of the building or infrastructure, which can be further enhanced with machine intelligence and cloud computing. BIM technologies have been found to be able to significantly improve collaborative processes, particularly in large-scale and complex building and construction projects [43][52][53][54], and they are increasingly adopted as the preferred method for collaboration in the industry [55][56].
It is, therefore, logical to predict that digital platforms such as BIM that can facilitate collaboration and data exchange throughout the whole project lifecycle would be equally effective in providing an enhanced collaboration environment for the delivery of complex housing developments addressing a wide range of social, environmental, and economic needs. With further technological advancement and careful implementation, such platforms would also be able to support the increasingly complex and diverse project teams, including both specialists and end-users relevant to those social challenges in housing, as discussed in the above section. However, in the current literature, while there are examples of collaborative processes associated with similarly intricate projects like specialised healthcare developments [43][57][58], there is less research about collaborative practices in complex residentials, especially mixed-use housing developments.
One of the key challenges that has emerged in the adoption of digital collaboration in construction is understanding the ways in which the necessary processes differ from the past ‘status-quo’ models of construction procurement and management [42]. To this end, London and Pablo [42] present a collaborative practice (CP) model that can be used to understand the processes within the building and construction industry. This model can be used as a way of understanding the network-based relationships associated with construction projects when embarking upon transformational changes in the housing sector. Researchers' study builds upon the CP model, which was developed through five comprehensive case studies from small and medium enterprises (SMEs) active in the off-site manufacturing (OSM) housing sector in Australia. The model defines nine key elements that are essential in facilitating the adoption of new technologies and industry-wide transformational changes, as well as the accompanying collaborative practices amongst various stakeholders in complex organisational networks that are required to instigate and sustain the changes. One such element is “Leadership,” which involves creating an environment conducive to change through skilful leadership. “Shared goals” represent another crucial aspect, encompassing the envisioning of compelling project objectives that address specific challenges.
The CP model also emphasises the importance of assembling a team with the appropriate “Expertise”—individuals possessing the necessary skills to contribute meaningfully to the project’s success. Addressing change is another significant dimension, with the model advocating for strategies to manage change and handle potential resistance during the project’s lifecycle.
“Investment” in resources is highlighted as an essential factor, suggesting the conscious allocation of resources to attract, retain, and acquire assets vital to the project’s advancement. “Shared space” is recognised for its role in nurturing productive face-to-face interactions, while “Problem-solving” is underscored for its emphasis on pursuing participative, adaptable, and forward-looking solutions.
The CP model also underscores the significance of “Organizing mechanisms,” emphasising the need to formalise team characteristics to sustain effective work patterns. Finally, “Technical standards” are deemed crucial for documenting and disseminating precise and accurate information, thus contributing to the overall success of collaborative endeavours.
Although the original CP model was developed based on case studies of OSM supply chains in SMEs, the generalisation and extension of the model have been shown to be applicable to the building and construction industry in general by adapting the meaningful relationships between those nine elements as they occur in other specific contexts [59]. Research take this model as the basis of a theoretical framework for the data analyses and interpretation narratives because of its effectiveness in unfolding the multifaceted aspects of collaboration. Additionally, researchers' case study and the original case studies upon which the CP model was developed share a similar level of complexity in collaboration, where they both consist of multiple networks of collaborators and organisations working together across different stages of the project. When necessary, adaptation is possible because many of the core structures and processes in these case studies are still equivalent and are applicable to a larger context [60]. In doing so, research aim to enhance the original CP model by extending its application and detailing the interrelationships between those elements as they occur in the new context, focusing on digital collaboration. This will also further improve the transferability of the model.

References

  1. World Economic Forum. Harnessing Public-Private Cooperation to Deliver the New Urban Agenda; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  2. Newton, P.W. Beyond greenfield and brownfield: The challenge of regenerating Australia’s greyfield suburbs. Built Environ. 2010, 36, 81–104.
  3. Newton, P.; Glackin, S. Understanding infill: Towards new policy and practice for urban regeneration in the established suburbs of Australia’s cities. Urban Policy Res. 2014, 32, 121–143.
  4. Gleeson, B.; Low, N. Australian Urban Planning: New Challenges, New Agendas; Allen & Unwin: Crowsnest, Australia, 2000.
  5. Kunz, J. Social Sustainability and Community Involvement in Urban Planning: Lessons from the Ecocity Project; University of Tampere, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, Unit for Research into Housing and the Environment: Tampere, Finland, 2006.
  6. Littig, B.; Griessler, E. Social sustainability: A catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2005, 8, 65–79.
  7. Beer, A.; Kearins, B.; Pieters, H. Housing Affordability and Planning in Australia: The Challenge of Policy Under Neo-liberalism. Hous. Stud. 2007, 22, 11–24.
  8. Taltavull, P.; Worthington, A.C. The quarter century record on housing affordability, affordability drivers, and government policy responses in Australia. Int. J. Hous. Mark. Anal. 2012, 5, 235–252.
  9. Biddle, T.; Bertoia, T.; Greaves, S.; Stopher, P. The Costs of Infill Versus Greenfield Development: A Review of Recent Literature. In Proceedings of the 29th Australian Transport Research Forum, Gold Coast, Australia, 27–29 September 2006; Queensland Transport: Gold Coast, Australia, 2006; pp. 1–15.
  10. Durand, C.P.; Andalib, M.; Dunton, G.F.; Wolch, J.; Pentz, M.A. A systematic review of built environment factors related to physical activity and obesity risk: Implications for smart growth urban planning. Obes. Rev. 2011, 12, e173–e182.
  11. Ewing, R.; Schmid, T.; Killingsworth, R.; Zlot, A.; Raudenbush, S. Relationship between Urban Sprawl and Physical Activity, Obesity, and Morbidity. Urban Ecol. 2008, 18, 567–582.
  12. Frank, L.; Kerr, J.; Chapman, J.; Sallis, J. Urban Form Relationships with Walk Trip Frequency and Distance among Youth. Am. J. Health Promot. 2007, 21, 305–311.
  13. Godfrey, R.; Julien, M. Urbanisation and health. Clin. Med. 2005, 5, 137–141.
  14. Jackson, L.E. The relationship of urban design to human health and condition. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 64, 191–200.
  15. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Population Ageing; United Nations: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
  16. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Older Australians at a Glance; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Canberra, Australia, 2017.
  17. Burton, E.J.; Mitchell, L.; Stride, C.B. Good places for ageing in place: Development of objective built environment measures for investigating links with older people’s wellbeing. BMC Public Health 2011, 11, 839.
  18. Saugeres, L. (Un) accommodating disabilities: Housing, marginalization and dependency in Australia. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2011, 26, 1–15.
  19. Beer, A.; Faulkner, D.; Gabriel, M. 21st Century Housing Careers and Australia’s Future: Literature Review; Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute: Melbourne, Australia, 2006.
  20. Infrastructure Victoria. Victoria’s Infrastructure Strategy 2021–2051; Infrastructure Victoria (IV): Melbourne, Australia, 2021; 300p.
  21. Master Builders Victoria (MBV). Enhancing Victoria’s Economic Performance and Productivity; Master Builders Victoria (MBV): Melbourne, Australia, 2017; p. 34.
  22. Wiesel, I.; Fisher, K. Housing choices and transitions under the NDIS. Parity 2014, 27, 15.
  23. Wiesel, I.; Habibis, D. NDIS, Housing Assistance and Choice and Control for People with Disability; AHURI Final Report; Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Ltd.: Melbourne, Australia, 2015; Volume 258, pp. 1–48.
  24. World Health Organization. Global Age Friendly Cities: A Guide; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.
  25. World Health Organization. Housing and Health Guidelines; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
  26. The Heart Foundation of Australia, Planning Institute of Australia, and Local Government Association. Healthy Spaces & Places. 2019. Available online: https://www.planning.org.au/documents/item/195 (accessed on 12 August 2023).
  27. McCamant, K.; Durrett, C. Creating Cohousing: Building Sustainable Communities; New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 2011.
  28. Durrett, C. The Senior Cohousing Handbook: A Community Approach to Independent Living; New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada, 2009.
  29. LHA. Livable Housing Design Guidelines. 2017. Available online: https://livablehousingaustralia.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/SLLHA_GuidelinesJuly2017FINAL4.pdf (accessed on 12 August 2023).
  30. NDIS. NDIS Specialist Disability Accommodation Design Standard. 2019. Available online: https://www.ndis.gov.au/media/1868/download (accessed on 12 August 2023).
  31. Delisle, J.R.; Grissom, T. An Empirical Study of The Efficacy of Mixed-Use Development: The Seattle Experience. J. Real Estate Lit. 2013, 21, 25.
  32. Anders, M. Understanding and balancing mixed-use schemes: The key to creating successful communities. J. Retail. Leis. Prop. 2004, 3, 353–364.
  33. Lee, J. Quality of Life and Semipublic Spaces in High-Rise Mixed-Use Housing Complexes in South Korea. J. Asian Arch. Build. Eng. 2011, 10, 149–156.
  34. Mualam, N.; Salinger, E.; Max, D. Increasing the urban mix through vertical allocations: Public floorspace in mixed use development. Cities 2019, 87, 131–141.
  35. Kearns, A.; Whitley, E.; Mason, P.; Bond, L. ‘Living the High Life’? Residential, Social and Psychosocial Outcomes for High-Rise Occupants in a Deprived Context. Hous. Stud. 2012, 27, 97–126.
  36. Yau, Y. Sense of community and homeowner participation in housing management: A study of Hong Kong. Urbani Izziv 2010, 21, 126–135.
  37. Jung, E.; Lee, J.; Kim, K. The Relationship Between Pedestrian Environments and Sense of Community in Apartment Complexes in Seoul, Korea. J. Asian Arch. Build. Eng. 2015, 14, 411–418.
  38. Husaini, B.A.; Moore, S.T.; Castor, R.S. Social and Psychological Well-Being of Black Elderly Living in High-Rises for the Elderly. J. Gerontol. Soc. Work. 1991, 16, 57–78.
  39. Muhuri, S.; Basu, S. Interactional spaces of a high-rise group housing complex and social cohesion of its residents: Case study from Kolkata, India. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2021, 36, 781–820.
  40. Lee, P.-C.; Su, H.-N. Investigating the structure of regional innovation system research through keyword co-occurrence and social network analysis. Innovation 2010, 12, 26–40.
  41. Barros, P.; Fat, L.N.; Garcia, L.M.; Slovic, A.D.; Thomopoulos, N.; de Sá, T.H.; Morais, P.; Mindell, J.S. Social consequences and mental health outcomes of living in high-rise residential buildings and the influence of planning, urban design and architectural decisions: A systematic review. Cities 2019, 93, 263–272.
  42. London, K.; Pablo, Z. An actor–network theory approach to developing an expanded conceptualization of collaboration in industrialized building housing construction. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2017, 35, 553–577.
  43. Merschbrock, C.; Munkvold, B.E. Effective digital collaboration in the construction industry—A case study of BIM deployment in a hospital construction project. Comput. Ind. 2015, 73, 1–7.
  44. Kılıç, P. Exploring Critical Success Factors for Partnering in Architectural Design Process. Ph.D. Thesis, Izmir Institute of Technology, Urla, Turkey, 2010.
  45. Baiden, B.; Price, A.; Dainty, A. The extent of team integration within construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2006, 24, 13–23.
  46. Ibrahim, N. Reviewing the evidence: USE of digital collaboration technologies in major building and infrastructure projects. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2013, 18, 40–63.
  47. Schöttle, A.; Haghsheno, S.; Gehbauer, F. Defining cooperation and collaboration in the context of Lean Construction. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Oslo, Norway, 25–27 June 2014.
  48. Xue, X.; Shen, Q.; Ren, Z. Critical Review of Collaborative Working in Construction Projects: Business Environment and Human Behaviors. J. Manag. Eng. 2010, 26, 196–208.
  49. Ibem, E.O.; Laryea, S. Survey of digital technologies in procurement of construction projects. Autom. Constr. 2014, 46, 11–21.
  50. Wong, C.H. ICT implementation and evolution: Case studies of intranets and extranets in UK construction enterprises. Constr. Innov. 2007, 7, 254–273.
  51. Singh, V.; Gu, N.; Wang, X. A theoretical framework of a BIM-based multi-disciplinary collaboration platform. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 134–144.
  52. Oh, M.; Lee, J.; Hong, S.W.; Jeong, Y. Integrated system for BIM-based collaborative design. Autom. Constr. 2015, 58, 196–206.
  53. Moum, A. The Role of BIM in the Architectural Design Process: Learning from Practitioners’ Stories; IGI Global: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
  54. Liu, Y.; van Nederveen, S.; Hertogh, M. Understanding effects of BIM on colalborative design and construction: An empirical study in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 686–698.
  55. McGraw Hill Construction. The Business Value of BIM for Construction in Major Global Markets: How Contractors around the World Are Driving Innovation with Building Information Modeling; Bernstein, H., Ed.; Smart Market Report; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
  56. Oraee, M.; Hosseini, M.R.; Papadonikolaki, E.; Palliyaguru, R.; Arashpour, M. Collaboration in BIM-based construction networks: A bibliometric-qualitative literature review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1288–1301.
  57. Lin, Y.-C.; Chen, Y.-P.; Yien, H.-W.; Huang, C.-Y.; Su, Y.-C. Integrated BIM, game engine and VR technologies for healthcare design: A case study in cancer hospital. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2018, 36, 130–145.
  58. Soliman-Junior, J.; Baldauf, J.P.; Tzortzopoulos, P.; Kagioglou, M.; Humphreys, J.S.; Formoso, C.T. Improving healthcare design with BIM-based tools. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 588, 032003.
  59. Pablo, Z.; London, K.A. Stable relationality and dynamic innovation: Two models of collaboration in SME-driven offsite manufacturing supply chains in housing construction. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2020, 27, 1553–1577.
  60. Gioia, D.A.; Corley, K.G.; Hamilton, A.L. Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organ. Res. Methods 2012, 16, 15–31.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Construction & Building Technology
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Ning Gu
,
Sahar Soltani
,
Kerry London
,
Zelinna Pablo
,
Aaron Davis
View Times: 189
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 25 Sep 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback