Case Studies

The aim for the Auckland based case studies is to compare cases with each other and illuminate the sustainability of Auckland housing within the context of the research definition. Ritchie and Thomas (2009) use case studies to illustrate model developments, or pioneering sustainability technology and approaches. While some of these are placed in a theoretical and political context, they are often discussed in isolation from each other, and the social, physical and political environments in which they exist. Stark and Torrance (2005, p. 38) describe the use of “Nested case studies” as teaching examples in texts where case studies describe specific situations the student may encounter in their future work. In this research, case studies will consist of four Auckland neighbourhoods and their context, and a selection of international case studies will be included in chapter six to compare against the local cases. This is to highlight any relative strengths or weaknesses in the local examples, and the influence of the Auckland, and in many ways New Zealand context on our housing options.

Assessing neighbourhoods over the whole Auckland region is problematic. At the time of commencing the research, what is now ‘Auckland’ was previously governed by eight local bodies. The former governance of the region meant that cases could be subject to different policies and council approaches, making it impractical to provide cases covering the whole Auckland region. Now amalgamated to become the Auckland Council, we have yet to see what effects the change in governance will have on changes in policy and the resulting residential redevelopments. Due to the ‘Eco-City’ priorities of the former Waitakere City, and the higher population of the former Auckland City, it was easier to locate housing developments in each area claiming sustainability measures, or held up as examples of sustainability in some way. Therefore

cases have been drawn from Auckland and Waitakere Cities only. Cases such as Addison Place in Papakura, and Sacramento and Eastpark in Botany Downs were not explored due to their distance from the researcher. Also, at the time of the study – as well their respective construction – they came under the regulations of the Papakura District and Manukau City Councils respectively. Two cases from the west of Auckland, in the former Waitakere City, were selected: Earthsong, a small development initiated by a trust formed by prospective homeowners with an interest in permaculture; and Harbour View, a larger suburban development initiated by Waitakere City council. In the Auckland isthmus the two cases selected were: Talbot Park, a substantial renovation and new build of a group of Housing New Zealand flats which attempts to incorporate green principles; and Stonefields, a significant development of thousands of homes which includes innovative approaches to water management. These cases have been selected to provide a range in terms of scale of development, target resident, and degree of sustainability initiatives included in the design or construction of the houses.

Blackmore and Lauder (2005) acknowledge that in tackling complex policy questions, quantitative analysis does not always provide an adequate response. To provide flexibility in approach as well as rich data for discussion, qualitative methods will be used – primarily case studies. The strength of using case studies to research a complex topic is the ability to “use multiple methods and data sources to explore it and interrogate it” (Stark & Torrance, 2005, p. 33). In the selection of cases to explore, the main concern was availability of data – which would have to be sourced from the public domain.

As mentioned in chapter two, and again here, the concept of ‘neighbourhood’ is a fluid one and no accessible or usable ‘neighbourhood frame’ exists from which to select. For both the Auckland and international cases purposive sampling was used, to seek out research subjects with characteristics that met the needs of the study and which were ‘information rich’. International neighbourhood cases were also selected for their high profile and range of sustainable attributes with which to compare the Auckland cases. Despite the

contested nature of sustainability as a concept, these neighbourhoods have become, by proxy, best practice examples of sustainable design.

The use of qualitative methods creates some restrictions on the research. As the method involves non-probability sampling, any relationships between variables cannot be extrapolated to the whole population, and one of the weaknesses of case studies is that it can be difficult to 'draw boundaries' around what to include and how much time to spend gathering data (Gliner, Morgan, & Leech, 2009; Stark & Torrance, 2005). While there is some discussion of the regulatory factors involved in each Auckland case, a detailed analysis of the limitations in housing and planning legislation is not provided. One further limitation to the research scope is the age of the housing assessed. Neighbourhoods selected are restricted to newly constructed, or renovated developments, mainly because of the depth of information available, but also because this is more reflective of the current context in which houses and neighbourhoods are built.