A Value Engineering Methodology for Low-Income Housing Projects in the Gaza Strip

Introduction

The Gaza Strip faces a severe housing crisis due to rapid population growth, limited resources, economic instability, and political constraints. Traditional construction methods often prove inefficient, costly, and unsustainable, making it difficult to meet the housing needs of low-income families. This study proposes a Value Engineering (VE) approach to optimize housing projects by improving functionality, reducing costs, and ensuring sustainability without compromising quality.

The Housing Crisis in Gaza

Gaza’s housing shortage stems from multiple factors:

• High population density: Limited land availability exacerbates housing demands.

• Economic blockade: Restrictions on construction materials increase costs.

• Poverty: Many families cannot afford conventional housing.

• War and destruction: Frequent conflicts lead to housing destruction, requiring rapid reconstruction.

Traditional construction methods are often slow, expensive, and resource-intensive. Thus, there is a pressing need for innovative, cost-effective solutions that maximize value for money.

What is Value Engineering (VE)?

Value Engineering is a systematic method to improve the functionality-to-cost ratio of a project. It involves:

1. Identifying key functions (e.g., shelter, durability, comfort).

2. Exploring alternative materials and methods that achieve the same function at lower cost.

3. Evaluating trade-offs between cost, quality, and sustainability.

VE has been successfully applied in construction worldwide but remains underutilized in Gaza due to a lack of awareness and technical expertise.

Proposed VE Methodology for Gaza’s Housing Projects

The study outlines a structured five-phase VE process:

1. Information Phase

   • Gather data on housing needs, available resources, and constraints.

   • Engage stakeholders (government, NGOs, engineers, residents).

2. Function Analysis Phase

   • Define essential housing functions (e.g., structural safety, thermal insulation, affordability).

   • Use the FAST (Function Analysis System Technique) diagram to prioritize needs.

3. Creative Phase

   • Brainstorm alternative solutions (e.g., modular construction, recycled materials, prefabrication).

   • Encourage innovative ideas from local engineers and architects.

4. Evaluation Phase

   • Assess alternatives based on cost, feasibility, and sustainability.

   • Shortlist the best options (e.g., using weighted scoring models).

5. Implementation Phase

   • Develop pilot projects to test VE solutions.

   • Monitor performance and refine techniques based on feedback.

Potential VE Solutions for Gaza

Several cost-saving and sustainable alternatives were identified:

• Alternative Building Materials:

  • Interlocking compressed earth blocks (ICEBs) – Cheaper than concrete, thermally efficient, and locally producible.

  • Recycled aggregates – Using rubble from demolished buildings reduces costs and waste.

  • Prefabricated panels – Faster construction with lower labor costs.

• Energy-Efficient Designs:

  • Passive solar heating and natural ventilation to reduce electricity dependency.

  • Rainwater harvesting systems to address water scarcity.

• Simplified Construction Techniques:

  • Modular designs that allow for incremental expansion as families grow.

  • Standardized plans to reduce design costs and speed up approvals.

Case Study: Applying VE in a Gaza Housing Project

A pilot housing projects was analyzed using the VE methodology:

• Initial Design: Traditional concrete construction, high cost (~$30,000 per unit).

• VE-Improved Design:

  • Used ICEB walls instead of concrete blocks (20% cost reduction).

  • Optimized layout to reduce material waste.

  • Integrated solar water heating.

• Result: 25% cost savings while maintaining structural integrity and livability.

Challenges and Recommendations

Despite its benefits, VE adoption in Gaza faces obstacles:

• Limited awareness of VE among contractors and policymakers.

• Restrictions on material imports hinder alternative solutions.

• Cultural resistance to non-traditional building methods.

To overcome these, the study recommends:

• Training programs for engineers on VE techniques.

• Government incentives for VE-compliant projects.

• Community engagement to build trust in alternative housing solutions.

Conclusion

Value Engineering offers a practical, cost-effective approach to addressing Gaza’s housing projects crisis. By optimizing materials, designs, and construction methods, VE can deliver affordable, durable, and sustainable housing projects for low-income families. The key to success lies in local capacity building, stakeholder collaboration, and pilot testing to demonstrate feasibility.

With proper implementation, VE could revolutionize Gaza’s construction sector, providing more homes at lower costs while promoting long-term resilience.

Also Read: The Vienna Model of Social and Affordable Housing