Competitiveness of residential buildings in the context of post-war reconstruction: criteria and assessment system
Keywords:
post-war reconstruction, competitiveness, competitiveness of residential buildings, assessment system, scoring model, Build Back Better, safety, inclusiveness, energy efficiency, residential environment, development project, construction, sustainable development, socially responsible developmentAbstract
The article examines the issue of competitiveness of residential buildings in the context of post-war reconstruction of Ukraine, which is becoming particularly relevant in the context of large-scale destruction of the housing stock, changes in the socio-demographic structure of the population and increased security risks. It is substantiated that traditional approaches to the assessment of residential facilities, focused mainly on market and architectural aesthetic characteristics, do not provide comprehensive consideration of modern challenges of post-war development and require a significant methodological revision.The purpose of the study is to form a system for comprehensive assessment of the competitiveness of residential buildings, adapted to the conditions of post-war reconstruction, by determining relevant criteria and substantiating the transformation of their weighting factors, taking into account the principles of security, sustainability, inclusiveness and energy efficiency. The theoretical basis of the study was the provisions of the Build Back Better concept, scientific publications on the issues of post-crisis reconstruction and housing resilience, as well as the results of generalizing international experience in evaluating housing projects.The paper proposes a structured system of criteria for a comprehensive assessment of the competitiveness of residential buildings, which covers urban planning and spatial, architectural planning, inclusive, security, environmental, energy efficiency, economic and social aspects. The need to adapt the weighting factors of the specified criteria in accordance with the conditions of post-war reconstruction is substantiated, which involves strengthening the role of security, civil protection, energy efficiency and housing accessibility for vulnerable groups of the population, while reducing the specific weight of architectural and aesthetic indicators.The practical significance of the work lies in the possibility of using the proposed scoring system for comparative analysis of residential buildings and projects, substantiation of urban planning and investment decisions, as well as the formation of priorities in post-war reconstruction programs. The results obtained create a scientific methodological basis for further research in the field of development of a competitive, safe and socially oriented residential environment.
References
Build Back Better in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction : Words into Action Guidelines. – Geneva : United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), 2017. – 120 p. – Режим доступу: https://www.undrr.org/publication/words-action-guidelines-build-back-better-recovery-rehabilitation-and-reconstruction (дата звернення: 20.04.2025).
Building Back Better in Post‑Disaster Recovery. Disaster Recovery Guidance Series. – Washington, DC : Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), World Bank Group, 2018. – 88 p.
Supporting Safer Housing Reconstruction After Disasters: Planning and Implementing Technical Assistance at Large Scale. – Nairobi : United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN‑Habitat), 2019. – 312 p. – Режим доступу: https://unhabitat.org/supporting-safer-housing-reconstruction-after-disasters-planning-and-implementing-technical (дата звернення: 20.04.2025).
The right to adequate housing in disasters, conflict and post‑conflict settings. – Geneva : Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), 2022. – Режим доступу: https://www.ohchr.org (дата звернення: 20.04.2025).
Shelter after disaster: Strategies for transitional settlement and reconstruction. – New York : United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), 2010. – 146 p.
ДБН В.1.2‑11:2021. Основні вимоги до будівель і споруд. Енергозбереження та енергоефективність. – Київ : Мінрегіон України, 2022.
ДБН В.2.2‑40:2018. Інклюзивність будівель і споруд. Основні положення. – Київ : Мінрегіон України, 2018.
Landaeta E., Richman J. Model of Build Back Better Utilization: Long-Term Recovery Groups and Post‑Disaster Housing Recovery // Sustainability. – 2023. – Vol. 15, № 23. – Art. 16424. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316424.
Vahanvati M., Rafliana I. Reliability of Build Back Better at enhancing resilience of communities // International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment. – 2019. – Vol. 10, № 4. – P. 217–231. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-05-2019-0025.
Ahmed I., Charlesworth E. R. An evaluation framework for assessing resilience of post‑disaster housing // International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment. – 2015. – Vol. 6, № 3. – P. 300–312. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJDRBE-11-2013-0042.
El Hage J., Shahrour I., Chehade F. H., Abi Farraj F. A Comprehensive Assessment of Buildings for Post‑Disaster Sustainable Reconstruction // Sustainability. – 2023. – Vol. 15, № 18. – Art. 13433. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813433.
Hofmann S. Z. Build Back Better and Long‑Term Housing Recovery: Assessing Community Housing Resilience and the Role of Insurance // Sustainability. – 2022. – Vol. 14, № 9. – Art. 5623. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095623.
Jørgensen B. N., Ma Z. G. Energy Efficiency and Decarbonization Strategies in Buildings: A Review of Technologies, Policies, and Future Directions // Applied Sciences. – 2025. – Vol. 15, № 21. – Art. 11660. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app152111660.
D’Agostino D., Parker D., Melià P. Environmental and economic implications of energy efficiency in new residential buildings: a multi‑criteria selection approach // Energy Strategy Reviews. – 2019. – Vol. 26. – Art. 100412. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100412.
Zallio M., Clarkson P. J. On inclusion, diversity, equity, and accessibility in civil engineering and architectural design: a review of assessment tools // Proceedings of the Design Society. – 2021. – Vol. 1. – P. 2297–2306. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.491.
Belenkova O. Yu. Theoretical prerequisites for the formation of the concept of “socially responsible development” // Ways to increase the efficiency of construction in the conditions of the formation of market relations. 2018. No. 38. P. 17–24.
Skalicky Klemenčič V., Žegarac Leskovar V. Towards Inclusive and Resilient Living Environments for Older Adults: A Methodological Framework for Assessment of Social Sustainability // Buildings. – 2025. – Vol. 15, № 14. – Art. 2501. – DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15142501.
Teng J., Wang W., Mu X., Xu C. Assessing energy efficiency of green measures for residential buildings: the simulation case of Changchun city in China // Journal of Housing and the Built Environment. 2021. Vol. 36. P. 103–117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-020-09793-x.
