As noted in our article on New Zealand’s wellbeing framework, section 3(a)(ii) of the Building Act seeks to ensure that buildings have attributes that contribute appropriately to the wellbeing of the people who use them. However, similar to Lucy’s analysis regarding wellbeing and the Resource Management Act, the term ‘wellbeing’ is not defined in the Building Act nor is it used elsewhere apart from in section 3(a)(ii) (as mentioned). So where does this leave the building industry and those that regulate it? How are they meant to give effect to the purpose of the Building Act and ensure that buildings contribute to the wellbeing of the people that use them? We will explore these issues, and more, in this instalment of our series on New Zealand’s wellbeing framework.

Excerpt from the Building Act 2004 — **Excerpt from the** **Building Act 2004**

Why build with wellbeing in mind?

We conduct most of our lives in, or around, buildings and the built environment. Research has estimated that New Zealanders spend almost 90% of their time indoors (Baker et al., 2007). How we interact with buildings therefore has the ability to impact our quality of life and general wellbeing. Butterworth (2000) summed it up by noting that:

The built environment provides the setting and backdrop by which we live our lives, and impacts on our senses, our emotions, participation in physical activity and community life, our sense of community, and general wellbeing.

To date, some research has been completed in New Zealand that directly and indirectly addresses the relationship between wellbeing and the built environment. This covers topics such as housing, climate change, mental health, ageing in place, and indoor environmental quality. As far as we could see, this research has not yet been stitched together to provide oversight of the impact that the built environment has on our wellbeing, and opportunities to improve it. It would also be useful to understand what specific tools or policy levers may be available to assist in achieving wellbeing goals through the building system.

Current policy levers

In addition to the regulatory signal provided by section 3(a)(ii) of the Building Act, building for wellbeing is also influenced by New Zealand’s national-level wellbeing policy framework, including the Living Standards Framework (LSF) and Indicators Aotearoa. For example.

The LSF references the built environment through its description of ‘physical capital’, which includes a number of relevant elements such as houses, buildings, and hospitals. The 12 domains of current wellbeing within the LSF further identify housing as a key contributor to how New Zealanders experience wellbeing.
Indicators Aotearoa provides wellbeing indicators across 24 topic areas, of which roughly 12 could be considered to be relevant to building for wellbeing. These include indicators regarding cities and settlements, climate, health, waste, work, financial and physical capital, natural capital, population, and production.

Local government in New Zealand also has a strong mandate for progressing both wellbeing and building outcomes. Section 3(d) of the Local Government Act (LGA) provides for local authorities to play a broad role in promoting the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of their communities. The LGA also provides a mandate for territorial authorities to perform the functions of building consent authorities; including issuing building consents and inspecting building work (among other responsibilities). It is unclear at the present time, however, whether the general wellbeing and building compliance functions of local government intersect or otherwise interact. Having dual responsibility for both wellbeing and building compliance may present a unique opportunity for territorial authorities to inform central government policy settings aimed at achieving a building system that contributes, in a meaningful way, to the wellbeing of building-users.

Another useful lever when considering building for wellbeing is the Construction Sector Accord (‘the Accord’), which was launched in 2019. The Accord represents a joint commitment from government and the building and construction industry, working together to create a high performing construction sector for a better Aotearoa New Zealand. The goals and outcomes of the Accord are depicted below, and include a construction sector that supports the wellbeing of all New Zealanders. The Accord is supported by the Transformation Plan which provides additional detail on actions to achieve its outcome, structured into six workstreams, one of which is entitled ‘health, safety, and wellbeing’. This, however, appears to relate to the health, safety and wellbeing of the construction sector workforce only; which is fair enough given recent research published on suicide in New Zealand’s construction workforce. However, the Accord does not currently appear to consider the wellbeing impacts of the built environment on building-users more generally.

Construction Sector Accord Summary, 2020

On the ground

Regardless of the high-level policy levers that exist, property developers are another group that have the ability to influence, and achieve, building for wellbeing outcomes directly through the design of developments and the individual buildings within them. At the moment, this is most evident in relation to designing buildings to maximise human health; through attention to details such as moisture control, insulation, and ventilation. Effectively, developers can build for wellbeing by looking beyond the minimum requirements provided in New Zealand’s Building Code, to design buildings with the wellbeing of building-users in mind.

Although there are no requirements for developers and builders to exceed the requirements of the Building Code, the voluntary use of building rating systems, such as the New Zealand Green Building Council’s (NZGBC) Homestar programme, or BREEAM in the UK, are gaining popularity. These systems apply a rating to buildings, usually at the design stage and when construction is complete, to benchmark the building against a series of evaluation criteria. In New Zealand, a 6 Homestar rating or higher, for example, means that a house will be easier and more cost effective to keep warm and healthy, and is more environmentally friendly, than a typical new house built to the standards of the Building Code.

Opportunities therefore exist for the private sector to achieve wellbeing outcomes for building-users, particularly from a human health perspective, in the absence of regulatory requirements to do so. We are interested to watch this space and see if, and how, property developers and builders embrace a wellbeing approach to the design and construction of homes, schools, and other buildings.

The final word

New Zealand’s building system is multi-faceted and elements within it provide direction (if not specific guidance) regarding building with the wellbeing of the end-user in mind. The purpose of the Building Act and the capitals and domains within the Living Standards Framework provide a sound foundation to achieve a built environment that contributes to the wellbeing of building-users in Aotearoa New Zealand. Additionally, local government has a clear mandate to progress wellbeing coupled with a strong building compliance function. The Construction Sector Accord is considering the wellbeing of the construction industry, and property developers have opportunities to exceed the minimum requirements of the Building Code to optimise the health and wellbeing of future building inhabitants.

What appears to be lacking, however, is oversight of building for wellbeing and the ability to monitor and report on initiatives and outcomes regarding the wellbeing of building inhabitants. And although there are a number of levers currently available to progress wellbeing outcomes through the built environment, few organisations appear to be utilising them at the current time.

It would be incredibly useful for policy-makers to identify linkages between, for example, the purpose of the Building Act (for buildings to contribute to the wellbeing of the people who use them), the Building Code, and the building consent process. Without tools, or actions, to implement the wellbeing intentions of the Building Act (and other legislation), desired outcomes will be unlikely, if not impossible, to achieve.

The time to pursue a deeper understanding of building for wellbeing has never been better. Greater knowledge of the impact of the built environment on the wellbeing of inhabitants, and the wellbeing of the construction industry, has been gained through New Zealand’s recent lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This knowledge will be instrumental in informing effective government, industry, and community responses to improve the living standards possible within our current built environment in the wake of COVID-19, to achieve better wellbeing outcomes for all New Zealanders.

Do you have any thoughts on, or experience of, the impact of the built environment on wellbeing? We’d love to hear from you, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.