Literature Review & Bibliography

LITERATURE REVIEW & BIBLIOGRAPHY
_____________________________________________________________________________
Building Consent Exemptions Policy and Risk to Users: Residential Access
Routes in New Zealand.
Roy Stewart
Southern Institute of Technology
MGT816, Special Topic
Dr. Robyn Hill
July 25th, 2021
MGT816 ASS 2 Roy Stewart 2018002263

LITERATURE REVIEW & BIBLIOGRAPHY 2
Introduction
There is a significant gap in the literature surrounding the risks to users of building work
that is exempt from the requirement for building consent, particularly in terms of human access
function. The Building Act 2004 Schedule One Exemptions include decks below 1.5 metres in
height, and habitable buildings of up to 30 square metres. Such work must still comply with the
Building Codes, but there is a lower level of compliance for exempt work. The Accident
Compensation Corporation (ACC, 2020) recorded 752,141 new claims from slips, trips and falls
during 2020. It is proposed that Schedule One Exemptions are contributing to this harm.
A multidisciplinary approach has been used to investigate the ramifications of non-
compliance and reasons for neglecting code D1 Access in residential projects. Included are
medical, Health and Safety, architectural, ergonomic and Building Law studies. The review
substructure investigates how slips, trips and falls affect people; design flaws in steps and
staircases; the role of architecture; the issue of non-compliance; the genesis of Building Code
exemptions; risk identification prior to changing building codes and above-code Universal
Design.
MGT816 Ass 2, Roy Stewart 2018002263

Literature Rev iew
How Slips, Trips and Falls Affect People
Much of the literature available on slip, trip or fall incidents is found in medical data, or
health and safety studies. In an objective case study, Callon et al. (2021) analysed patient data
from a trauma centre at Aintree University Hospital in Liverpool in the United Kingdom. Scott
(2005) completed an objective international literature review for the Health and Safety Executive
in the United Kingdom, investigating slips, trips and falls. Keall et al. (2008) also took an
objective Health and Safety perspective and studied the safety of homes in Wellington, New
Zealand. Cohen et al. (2009) utilised a qualitative, systemic approach and analysed 80 fall
incidents in the United States from well-described accounts, made during personal injury
litigation.
The Scott (2009) and Callon et al. (2021) methodologies were to investigate causes
through accident reports, casualty reports, coroners’ reports and compensation reports. A
limitations is that such records do not identify the building elements associated with the
accidents. This is seen as a barrier to the understanding of home hazards by Keall et al. (2008).
Furthermore, qualitative injury accounts such as used by Cohen et al. (2009) may be biased.
The vast majority of fall accidents occur within the home environment, which Scott
(2005) believed to suggest that the elderly are more likely to be injured: Because they spend
more time at home. However, Cohen et al. (2009) dispelled the over-involvement of advanced
age. Furthermore, Keall et al. (2008) found that injury rates were high for the under-fives as well
as over-60s. Similarly, the World Health Organisation (WHO, 2021) recognised that by far the
most prevalent reason for child hospital admissions are from children who fall in their homes.
Cohen et al. (2009) and Scott (2005) stated that a multiplicity of interacting factors cause
slips, trips and falls and that this calls for systems thinking. However, Keall et al. (2008)

measured the correlation between home hazards and injury from a sample of New Zealand
households, and found a direct correlation between identified hazards and reported injuries. Each
hazard within a home increased the incidence of injuries by 22%, even after adjusting for
confounding factors.
Atlas (2019) found that the consequences of a person suffering injures from a fall
accident are ten times more likely than being a victim from a fire, yet safe egress design was
ignored in favour of appearance. The comparison between falls injuries and fire injuries is valid,
because both of these have verifiable national statistics, and both areas are considered when
evaluating a house design. New Zealand’s ratio of fall injuries vs. fire related injuries is
significantly higher than that of the 10:1 ratio in the United States. In 2020, there were more than
14 times as many ACC claims in New Zealand for slips, trip and falls as there were for fire-
related claims 1. This comparison illustrates that Access Route provisions should be considered at
least as seriously as are fire codes.
Design Flaws in Staircases
In the Scott (2005) literature review, the main reasons for accidents on staircases were
found to be design flaws such as too short a going length (Figure 1) and a lack of handrails. The
WHO (2021) and Keall et al. (2008) also mention a lack of handrails. Cohen et al. (2009)
confirmed that a lack of handrails were reported in 5% of cases.
1 In New Zealand there were 752141 slips, trip and falls at home in 2020 (ACC, 2020; Analytics ACC, 2020) while
Analytics ACC published data due to an Official Information Request regarding fire-related injury claims, which
showed there were 52,400 new claims in 2020. The ratio is calculated as 752141/52400 = 14.35 (2 d.p.) and
therefore is expressed as 14:1

Figure 1:
Simple Staircase Terminology
Figure 1 Note: Image retrieved from Express Stairs UK. (n.d.). Staircase terminology.
https://www.expressstairs.co.uk/help-guides/staircase-terminology/
Cohen et al (2009) also focused on staircase design flaws: They found that riser
variability was more heavily implicated than going length 2. This was confirmed by Johnson &
Pauls (2010), who established that a trip hazard in the form of an irregular riser in a flight of
stairs can increase the probability of an accident occurring, by two orders of magnitude. Scott
(2005) stated that most accidents occurred on short flights of less than three treads, or overly
long ones of more than sixteen. Furthermore, outside steps can be wet or icy, which indicates a
need for non-slip surfaces. The WHO (2021) state that uneven steps, indoor stairs and bathrooms
pose the greatest risk. This was confirmed by Keall et al. (2008) who believed that hazard
mitigation can significantly reduce accidents.
2
In 60 percent of cases that had undergone a trip hazard, staircase riser variations were in excess of 9.5mm (0.375"),
as compared with 34 percent of the cases that were due to going variations in excess of 9.5mm (0.375") (Cohen et
al., 2009).

The Role of Architecture
Atlas (2019) wrote a conference paper, asking: “What is the role of design and
architecture in slips, trips or falls accidents?” In an Architectural Journal article, Kim & Steinfeld
(2016) asked similar questions: “What are the causes of this public health problem? Can
architectural research do anything about it?”. Atlas’ (2019) methodology was realist in its review
of the literature and use of objective national statistics from the National Safety Council in the
United States. By contrast, Kim & Steinfeld (2016) recognised the subjective nature of their
questions and subsequently provided consistency in their research by evaluating photographs and
drawings of stairways that were published in Architectural Record articles and advertisements
between 2000 and 2012. Kin & Steinfeld (2016) discovered that over 61% of the staircases
reviewed had at least one visible design flaw. The most common design hazards were defective
or missing handrails, stairway flights that were too long, a reduced visibility of tread edges, open
risers, and bad riser-to-tread ratios. These design flaws are in accordance with findings from
injury reports made by Scott (2005), Cohen et al. (2009) and the WHO (2021). Both Atlas
(2019) and Kim & Steinfeld (2016) made the recommendation to teach safe egress design as part
of architecture curricula.
Atlas (2019) postulated that the architecture profession and by implication the
construction industry, is dominated by aesthetics, without accounting for the safety of users. Kim
& Steinfeld (2016) made a similar argument: They believed that bad staircase design was a by-
product of developing strong architectural design values and wanting to be noticed, and they call
for more vigilance from clients and Building Control Officials. However, the evidence
investigated by Kim & Seinfeld (2016) was from architecture magazines that concentrated on

advertising aesthetics and architectural proficiency, rather than functionality, which may have
influenced their conclusion.
Non-compliance
The performance requirements for Access Routes are contained in New Zealand Building
Code Clause D1 Access, and these can be met in accordance with the Acceptable Solution
D1/AS1. The acceptable solution is comparable to international standards, and is based on the
Norwegian model (Denizou, 2016; Nwadike & Wilkinson, 2020-a). Fakunle et al. (2020)
reviewed international building codes, and Stannard (2020) reviewed the New Zealand codes in
particular.
In their literature review of 75 papers, Fakunle et al. (2020) sought to provide a
qualitative understanding on major barriers to the enforcement and violation of building codes
and regulations. They found fault with complexity of laws, a lack of qualified Building Control
Authorities, and an inability for populations to afford to pay for the expected standard. Nwadike
& Wilkinson (2020-a) stated that non-compliance can be a result of the inability to comprehend
the law changes due to complexity, especially in groups with lower technical capacity: They
confirmed this statement in another paper that conducted a questionnaire (Nwadike &
Wilkinson, 2020-b). The inability to comprehend law changes was echoed by Denizou (2016)
and Stannard (2020) and who cited the World Bank (2015) and agreed that impoverished
countries have greater death statistics due to lowered, or a lack of, standards. In New Zealand
policies, Stannard (2020) identified barriers to compliance that included siloed code clauses,
ontological decisions made regarding the importance of buildings and vague language, such as
tolerable impact or reasonable grounds. They also identified a major influence on levels of
compliance exerted by Building Control Authorities: Without oversight, building codes have
little effect or significance.

Non-compliance has been the result of de-regulation in Germany, following a blanket
exemption for all buildings under 13 metres in height. Over one hundred thousand houses were
built without permits as a result, which saved over one hundred million Euros in fees. However
the subsequent building failures are causing significant fiscal damage, especially to homeowners
(Damm, 2004).
The Genesis of Building Code Exemptions
Nwadike & Wilkinson (2020-a) conducted a literature review for an international
conference, that studied the Building Code amendment process in New Zealand. Drivers that
lead to a change in legislation are politicised, such as a perceived need for technological
innovation during the early nineties. The changes made in the nineties allowed more creativity
and the use of new construction systems, but the simultaneous deregulation of the building
industry caused a drastic reduction in quality (Buchanan et al. 2006). The Leaky Homes crisis
was a result, which required an overhaul of the Building Legislation in 2004. The Christchurch
and Kaikoura earthquakes also drove change, with tightened rules, and more detailed maps
around earthquake risks. The most recent change, however, is the widening of the exempt
building work category, which was instigated by a desire to reduce compliance costs, in response
to the housing crisis and the associated building boom. As the Building Act (2004) was
comprehensive, it led to a perception that councils would be overworked, and that Schedule 1
Exemptions would thus save time and money. Decks below 1.5 metres in height, and buildings
up to 10 square metres in area were subsequently categorised as exempt, due to an assessment
that they present a low risk. During 2020, an Impact Summary led to a proposal to increase the
scope of the Schedule One Exemptions, again, in order to speed council processes, and save
money (MBIE, April 21, 2020). As a result, Schedule One exemptions have now been expanded
to include buildings up to 30 square metres in area.

Risk identification
In New Zealand, changes to the building code are initiated by proposals from MBIE to
the Central Government. Two impact summaries are compared: One from MBIE (21 April,
2020) and the other from the Department of Building and Housing (DBH, 2010). They both were
intended to serve as executive risk assessments and cost/benefit analyses prior to legislative
policy changes. These summaries are examples of risk-based regulation. To provide a lens to
these two impact summaries, van der Heijden (2019) conducted a comprehensive international
literature review on risk governance and risk-based regulation.
A systematic search on the Web of Science database (van der Heijden, 2019) returned
1,126 book chapters and peer-reviewed journal articles. These results were refined to the 159
publications that were reviewed. Nevertheless, risk identification is mentioned only once. This
reveals a gap in the literature. The only advice given on the topic is from the International Risk
Governance Council: That failure to act upon early warnings leads to undetected signals of a
known risk, and that an early warning system should be used to prevent this (IRGC, as cited by
van der Heijden, 2019). No explanation is provided as to how such a system should be designed.
Unless all potential risks are identified, however, appraisal and management of those risks
cannot occur.
The MBIE risk matrix assessment claims to have evaluated risk to people and property
(pg. 4, MBIE, April 21, 2020). A severe failure of the process is that the only risks identified,
were those associated with structural integrity and fire. Prior to the risk assessment, MBIE
consulted only a small group of individuals who are their permanently approved advisors,
representing only three stakeholder groups: Building Control Authorities, construction material
suppliers and large building contractors. Building users, the Accident Compensation

Corporation, hospitals and trauma centres were ignored. This may reflect a complacency bias
(IRGC, 2017).
MBIE stated that the same guidelines for safety were used in their regulatory impact
assessment, as were used in 2004. Van der Heijden (2019) warned of methodology repetition
when creating risk assessments: Policy-makers are in a rush to produce risk assessments, based
on previous, similar risk assessments, thereby repeating an ontological bias of viewing fiscal risk
as more important than risk of injury. There is also an industry-wide preoccupation with
structural engineering and profit, in spite of the primary purpose of the Building Act 2004 being
to prevent harm to users.
The Ministry of Business Innovation and Enterprise (April 21, 2020) document also
presented a Cost/Benefit analysis of the proposed exemptions (pg. 10, MBIE, April 21, 2020),
which predicts a $14.7 to $18 Million reduction in fees, levies and building consent fees only.
Nevertheless, the annual cost to New Zealand society due to slips, trips and falls in homes is $1.3
Billion (ACC, 2020). The toll for medical care is exacerbated by the societal cost, which is
approximately ten times that amount (Johnson & Pauls, 2010). The cost estimate of direct costs
from ACC is nearly two orders of magnitude higher than the figure given for savings in the
Impact Summary (MBIE, April 21, 2020). The costs of only a 1.4% increase in slips trips and
falls in New Zealand, stemming from a lower level of compliance, would exceed the projected
savings3.
3
18 Million/1.3 Billion *100 =1.38% (2 d.p.)

Above-code Universal Design
The term Universal Design was first coined by Ron Mace (1985). The United Nations
define Universal Design as “the design of products, environments, programmes and services to
be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or
specialised design.” (Article 2, United Nations, n.d.). New Zealand acceded to the Optional
Protocol of the United Nations Convention on Universal Design, on 5 October 2016 (Ministry of
Justice, 2020). The New Zealand government subsequently published a guide, aimed at public
buildings (MBIE, 2019). Because the United Nations protocol was optional and it was perceived
that the implementation of Universal Design principles to residential properties would be costly
for the public, the standards were set to only apply to public buildings. This is the solution
sought by many countries (Kose, 2018). James et al. (2018) conducted market research that was
funded by the New Zealand Building Research Levy in order to promote above-code standards,
including those relating to access routes, for the purpose of improving sustainability.
Accessibility refers to a higher standard for access routes that provides features required
by disabled persons. As James et al. (2018) noted, the rules for accessibility are considered to be
above-code for residential buildings, making calls for improvement challenging. As Keall et al.
(2008) pointed out, accessibility is only considered post-disability, and is erroneously seen as of
benefit only to the disabled. The advantages of taking a pre-emptive approach, i.e. widespread
adoption of universal accessibility design, are: Lower injury rates and the future-proofing of the
housing stock.
Norway adopted Universal Design for accessibility by adding it into the Performance
requirements of their Building Law in 2010. Nwadike & Wilkinson (2020) identified that the
New Zealand 2004 suite of Building Laws and associated codes were based on the Norwegian

Model, therefore a study from Norway is relevant. Denizou (2016) conducted a qualitative case-
study in Norway, with a methodology that combined in-depth study of accessibility requirements
and types of guidelines, with semi-structured interviews and a study of architectural drawings in
three small (n < 10) architecture firms. The findings from this study highlight the importance of
private accessibility consultants.
In New Zealand, Universal Design for access routes, which is driven by the private
sector, is a trend that is in opposition to the deregulation agenda of the central government. An
example of private sector involvement is LifeMark®, who offer a star-rating for dwellings
designed and built in accordance with their accessibility guidelines (LifeMark, 2016). Local
incentives structures have been successful: Thames/Coromandel District Council, offer a
remission of 50% of all fixed building consent and resource consent charges applicable for
houses that have Lifemark® certification (Thames Coromandel District Council, 2015), with
substantial uptake. As Kose (2016) stated: Incentives are most effective when implementing
accessibility rules. Lifemark® approached the central government, presented a briefing to Phil
Twyford, the Minister of Housing, in November of 2017. They were unsuccessful in their
campaign for KiwiBuild houses to be built in accordance with Universal Design via LifeMark®
standards (Disability Action, 2017).
Conclusion
The study of ergonomic risk in buildings is emergent in the literature and the World
Health Organisation has only recently examined high casualty rates due to falls. People of all
ages and socio-economic demographics suffer a high level of harm from badly designed access

routes. Although slips trips and falls can always be described in terms of user error, such errors
are largely due to design faults.
Exemptions from the requirement for building consent are intended to reduce fees. An
unintended consequence, is the harm and associated cost of the resultant decrease in compliance
with building codes related to access routes. The cost to the Accident Compensation Corporation
is not considered by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Enterprise. This review reveals
that the Ministry failed in their duty to observe the primary purpose of the Building Act, which is
to ensure that buildings are safe for users. An emergent trend is the application of Universal
Design for access routes, as offered and promoted by the private sector in collaboration with
Territorial Authorities.

Annotated Bibliography
Callon, J., Thomas, D., & Mercer, S. J. (2021). Falls downstairs: The impact on a UK major
trauma centre. Trauma, 14604086211002989.
Callon et al. (2021) analysed the 860 patients, who had fallen on staircases, and had
presented to a major trauma centre, over a three year period. The main line of argument is
that staircases cause societal suffering that is worse than that of car accidents, which is
confirmed by Keall et al. (2009). The evidence was objective and was gleaned from
verifiable hospital records. They concluded that injured patients who experienced a fall
downstairs, place a heavy burden on that centre, making up nearly one fifth of all cases.
The burden was significantly increased because the patients were often frail and therefore
required long stays. Nearly 1/3 of those undergoing surgery, subsequently died.
Furthermore, nearly half of them suffered head-trauma, 3% died upon admission and
there was an overall mortality rate of 8.6%. A stated limitation of that study is that
demographics of the area were not studied, thereby the significance of aging populations
was not addressed. The study is relevant as it illustrates the suffering caused in
association with stairs.
Damm, B. (2004) Streamlined Permitting in Building Laws of the Federal Republic of Germany
and its Effects on Mass Movements. In Malzahn, D. & Plapp, T., (Eds.). Disasters and
Society - From Hazard Assessment to Risk Reduction. Berlin, pp 377 - 384
In Germany, a raft of building consent exemptions for all buildings up to 13m high were
initiated in 1994. The argument presented is that Building Consent exemptions lead to
non-compliance and building failure, for which the elimination of Building Control
Authority oversight was found to be the primary cause. The government claimed that

exemptions saved 110 Million Euros between 1992 and 2004, but they did not consider
the cost of failures.
Four qualitative descriptions were presented in case studies from separate municipalities.
The author found that town planners had assumed that architects would conduct
geotechnical surveys, which architects neglected to do, supposing that surveys were not
required. The failures were hidden due to the elimination of municipal oversight, and
because damage was paid for privately. This study is relevant: The purpose was to reduce
consent fees, and to speed the process of building houses during a housing crisis. It was
assumed that the construction industry was mature enough to observe existing building
laws. This is the same reasoning used to justify recent exemptions from building consents
in New Zealand. The study illustrates the faulty assumptions made by policy-makers.
Denizou, K. (2016). Universal Design as a booster for housing quality and architectural practice.
In Universal Design 2016: Learning from the Past, Designing for the Future (pp. 111-
120). IOS Press.
During 2010, the Norwegian government amended building legislation, in order to
comply with the Optional Protocol of the United Nations Convention on Universal
Design, which is a recommendation for the introduction of accessibility performance
provisions. The purpose of the study was to discover how architects were faring in terms
of these changes to the law. Three case studies used qualitative evidence from
architectural firms, that included drawings and interviews.
The intention of the government was that designers would innovate in this area, however,
this placed a burden of creativity on architects, since no specific solutions were provided.
A key finding was that architects were frustrated by the lengthy process for each
individual design. Although innovation was the intention, architects demanded that the

government provide some guidelines to speed up their design process, since the
legislation had only set performance requirements. The available accessibility literature
was fragmented. Solutions use for commercial buildings, which were already
compulsory, could not be easily applied, because of small residential building footprints.
It was found that the companies who were capable of effective residential accessibility
design were consultants, catering for the disabled. Thus a trend has emerged whereby
architects employ these private consultants, or other specialised people internally, to
accommodate the process. In this situation the standards are being set by the private
sector.
Fakunle, F., Opiti, C., Sheikh, A., & Fashina, A. (2020). Major barriers to the enforcement and
violation of building codes and regulations: a global perspective. SPC Journal of
Environmental Sciences, 2(1), 12-18.
In an investigation into non-compliance, Fakunle et al. (2020) took a global perspective
that included both developed and developing countries. Qualitative evidence was found
in building codes that are published by governments and a review of the literature on how
these are enforced. They concluded that some of the reasons for failure, are due to
Building Control Officials being unable to assess complex engineering. Furthermore,
some countries have populations that cannot afford a house built to minimum standards.
Some countries have building codes, but have yet to enforce them. The least developed
countries find that the Building Codes are too complex to understand. As all the literature
was from secondary sources and there were no ethical issues.
There is some commonality with the New Zealand construction sector. For example,
housing affordability and the housing crisis have led directly to Schedule One

exemptions. Another issue is complexity: Stannard (2020) found that multiple cross-
references between codes, easily misinterpreted nomenclature and complex graphs (see:
pg 28, MBIE, n.d.) causes confusion. This study is relevant, as it demonstrated some
reasons for compliance failure. It also shows that New Zealand is in some respects, as
unfavourably placed as developing countries that have building codes in place, but do not
follow them.
James, B., Saville-Smith, N., Saville-Smith, K., & Isaacs, N. P. (2018). Doing better in
residential dwellings: Going beyond the Code in energy and accessibility performance.
BRANZ.
James et al (2018) investigated residential sector accessibility, energy efficiency and
thermal performance in New Zealand. They found that accessibility was considered to be
a beyond-code performance standard, and that implementation requires integration of
householder needs and industry decision tools or guidelines. The report consisted of three
separate literature reviews of existing research into the barriers to take-up of innovation
and product, materials and design solutions. A limitation is that they discovered that there
is only scant research available on the topic of Access Routes, as research surrounding
sustainability usually focuses on thermal performance and associated energy codes. This
study is relevant because it demonstrates the difficulty of communicating the benefits of
exceeding minimum standards. People fail to understand future proofing via ergonomic
design, as they believe it does not apply to their personal situation and that houses can be
reconfigured if the need arises. Kose (2018) agrees that designing for aging-in-place is
unpopular for the same reasons. This study is significant because it demonstrates that
building users are unaware of the dangers of sub-standard access routes to all but the
aged or infirm.

Johnson, D. A., & Pauls, J. (2010). Systemic stair step geometry defects, increased injuries, and
public health plus regulatory responses. Contemporary ergonomics and human factors,
2010, 453-461.
This study combined a series of qualitative experiments, with constructive graphing of
slips, trips and falls cases according to objective raw data from United States national
statistics. The main focus was on irregular step risers. The case study experiments cited
were at crowded stadiums.
Accidents were found to have occurred due to small variations in top tread nosings and
non-conformity in the top two or three treads. The implication of non-conformities in
staircases also confirms the study by Cohen et al. (2009). Dramatic increases in the
magnitude of accident probability stem from small irregularities. Furthermore, Johnson &
Pauls (2010) implicated building inspectors for not detecting these faults. This study is
useful as it gives clear instructions for inspectors on-site: For example, a crouch-and-
sight test can detect irregularity. The study included suggested solutions such as the
measuring of nosing-to-nosing angles (relative to horizontal) and the nosing-to-nosing
distance.
Keall, M. D., Baker, M., Howden-Chapman, P., & Cunningham, M. (2008). Association
between the number of home injury hazards and home injury. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 40(3), 887-893.
This positivist study combined objective, verifiable data from the Accident
Compensation Corporation (ACC) with detailed housing data obtained through safety

inspections. It also trialled a method for assessing hazards within houses: In order to
assess the most dangerous parts, the researchers compiled a list of hazards. It was found
that the number of injuries reported at ACC, according to area, directly correlate to the
number of hazards identified within homes. The hazard data was from a stratified,
randomised sample of 102 houses in the Lower Hutt Valley in Wellington, New Zealand,
that were identified through council records. Strata were the age of the house; level of
deprivation of the immediate neighbourhood and geographic location. Furthermore,
residents were divided by race and age group. This study is relevant because most of the
identified hazards pertained to Building Code D1 Access. There were multiple hazards
recorded for steps and stairs. Of the 35 hazards on the list, 28 were related to steps, stairs
and paths. It was demonstrated that each hazard contributed to a 22% increase in injuries,
and that the mean number of hazards per house was seven. The study is relevant because
it provides evidence that the high level of harm from slips, trips and falls reported by
ACC, corresponds with a high number (5.6 per house) of access route defects, negating
any assumption that such accidents are mainly attributable to user error.
Kose, S. (2018). Housing Design for the Ageing: Struggle Toward Supporting Age-in-Place
Instead of Special Housing for Seniors. In Transforming our World Through Design,
Diversity and Education (pp. 307-314). IOS Press.
The focus of this study was on housing design for ageing populations. Documents that
were investigated compared design guidelines in the United States, the United Kingdom
and Japan. Ageing populations are a feature of nearly all developed countries. Ageing-in-
place is believed to reduce the enormous costs of re-location. The most effective policy
was in Japan, where the government mandated a lowering of mortgage interest rates if

accessibility requirements were met. This policy led to more than half of new houses
being built to Universal Design standards. However, more recently, extremely low
interest rates have removed that advantage. The United Kingdom attempted to make
accessibility and visit-ability obligatory, however the Conservative government
abandoned the idea for political reasons: It was perceived that private companies had
created the standards without conducting a cost-benefit analysis.
The study was useful because it revealed the complexity and consequent dilution of
requirements for accessibility. A devolution to owner responsibility for safety within
homes becomes difficult when guidelines are complex, as is the case in New Zealand. It
also confirms that incentivising of above-code features is effective.
van der Heijden, J. (2019). Risk governance and risk-based regulation: A review of the
international academic literature. State of the Art in Regulatory Governance Research
Paper – 2019.02. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington/Government Regulatory
Practice Initiative.
This study is a comprehensive international literature review with the purpose of creating
an academic Governance and Regulatory curriculum. The evidence was obtained from
159 qualitative and quantitative articles that were reduced from over a thousand. Of
particular interest, in the context of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s
failure to identify risks to users within their assessment for the recent Schedule One
exemption proposal, is that only one sentence within van der Heijden’s study mentioned
risk identification. This shows that the gap in the literature with respect to risk
identification, corresponds with the absence of a risk identification system within the
Ministry, and suggests the possibility of common causes for the failure.

References
Accident Compensation Corporation, (ACC), (2020). Injuries from Falls.
https://www.acc.co.nz/newsroom/media-resources/injuries-from-falls/
Analytics, Accident Compensation Corporation, (ACC), (2020). Fire Related Claims.
data.govt.nz. https://catalogue.data.govt.nz/dataset/fire-related-claims
Atlas, R. (2019, November). What Is The Role Of Design And Architecture In Slip, Trip, And
Fall Accidents?. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual
Meeting (Vol. 63, No. 1, pp. 531-536). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Buchanan, A. H., Deam, B. L., Fragiacomo, M., Gibson, T., & Morris, H. (2006). Fifteen years
of performance-based design in New Zealand.
Callon, J., Thomas, D., & Mercer, S. J. (2021). Falls downstairs: The impact on a UK major
trauma centre. Trauma, 14604086211002989.
Cohen, J., LaRue, C. A., & Cohen, H. H. (2009). Stairway falls an ergonomics analysis of 80
cases. Professional Safety, 54(01).
Damm, B. (2004) Streamlined Permitting in Building Laws of the Federal Republic of Germany
and its Effects on Mass Movements. In Malzahn, D. & Plapp, T., (Eds.). Disasters and
Society - From Hazard Assessment to Risk Reduction. Berlin, pp 377 - 384
Department of Building and Housing. (DBH). (2010). Building Act review: Proposals and
options for reform. Agency Disclosure Statement.
https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2017-01/ris-dbh-bar2-jul10.pdf
Denizou, K. (2016). Universal Design as a booster for housing quality and architectural practice.
In Universal Design 2016: Learning from the Past, Designing for the Future (pp. 111-
120). IOS Press.

Disability Action. (2017). Joint briefing to Hon Phil Twyford, Minister of Housing. Disability
Action, Including All people. https://www.ccsdisabilityaction.org.nz/assets/resource-
files/Joint-briefing-to-the-Minister-of-Housing.pdf
Fakunle, F., Opiti, C., Sheikh, A., & Fashina, A. (2020). Major barriers to the enforcement and
violation of building codes and regulations: a global perspective. SPC Journal of
Environmental Sciences, 2(1), 12-18.
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). (2019). IRGC Risk Governance Framework.
https://irgc.org/risk-governance/irgc-risk-governance-framework/
IRGC. (2017). Introduction to the IRGC Risk Governance Framework, revised version.
Lausanne: EPFL International Risk Governance Center.
James, B., Saville-Smith, N., Saville-Smith, K., & Isaacs, N. P. (2018). Doing better in
residential dwellings: Going beyond the Code in energy and accessibility performance.
BRANZ.
Johnson, D. A., & Pauls, J. (2010). Systemic stair step geometry defects, increased injuries, and
public health plus regulatory responses. Contemporary ergonomics and human factors,
2010, 453-461.
Keall, M. D., Baker, M., Howden-Chapman, P., & Cunningham, M. (2008). Association
between the number of home injury hazards and home injury. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 40(3), 887-893.
Keall, M., Kamalesh, V., Baker, M., Howden-Chapman, P., Cunningham, M & Guria, J. (2009).
Taranaki Home Injury Hazards Study. Build Magazine, June/July, 2009, (pp. 52-53).
Kim, K., & Steinfeld, E. (2016). An evaluation of stairway designs featured in architectural
record between 2000 and 2012. ArchNet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural
Research, 10(1), 96.

Kose, S. (2018). Housing Design for the Ageing: Struggle Toward Supporting Age-in-Place
Instead of Special Housing for Seniors. In Transforming our World Through Design,
Diversity and Education (pp. 307-314). IOS Press.
Ministry of Justice. (2020). Constitutional issues & human rights - Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities. https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-
policy/constitutional-issues-and-human-rights/human-rights/international-human-
rights/crpd/
LifeMark. (2016). Lifemark Design Standards Overview. LifeMark.
https://www.lifemark.co.nz/cms/files/Lifemark-Design-Standards-Overview-1.pdf
Mace, R., “Universal Design, Barrier Free Environments for Everyone,” Designers West,
November 1985
MBIE. (n.d.). Acceptable Solutions and Verification Methods For New Zealand Building Code
Clause D1, Access Routes.
MBIE. (2019). About this guide: Designing buildings for access and usability. Ministry of
Business, Innovation and Enterprise. http://www.building.govt.nz/building-code-
compliance/d-access/accessible-buildings/about/#jumpto-universal-design
MBIE. (April 21, 2020). Impact Summary: Building Consent Exemptions: Possible amendments
to Schedule 1 of the Building Act 2004. MBIE Publication no. z96jefgse. Wellington.
New Zealand Legislation. (2004). Building Act 2004.
Nwadike, A. & Wilkinson, S. (2020-a). Building code amendment process: a case study of New
Zealand. In 9th International Conference on Building Resilience-ICBR, Bali, Indonesia.
Nwadike, A., & Wilkinson, S. (2020-b). Challenges facing building code compliance in New
Zealand. International Journal of Construction Management, 1-11.

Scott, A. (2005). Falls on stairways: literature review. Health and Safety Laboratory.
https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2005/hsl0510.pdf
Stannard, M. (2020). The New Zealand Building Code-a rethink? Proceedings of the 2020 New
Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Annual Technical Conference.
Thames Coromandel District Council. (2015). Long Term Plan 2015 - 2025. pg 119.
https://www.tcdc.govt.nz/Global/FINAL%20Long%20Term%20Plan%20as%20at%2013
th%20July%2015.pdf
United Nations. (n.d.). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional
Protocol. https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf
van der Heijden, J. (2019). Risk governance and risk-based regulation: A review of the
international academic literature. State of the Art in Regulatory Governance Research
Paper – 2019.02. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington/Government Regulatory
Practice Initiative.
World Bank. 2015. Building Risks for Resilience: Managing Buildings for Safer Cities; World
Bank, GFDRR; 2015
World Health Organisation. (2021). Step safely: strategies for preventing and managing falls
across the life-course. Geneva: World Health Organization. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0
IGO.

Literature Review & Bibliography

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Literature Review & Bibliography

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LITERATURE REVIEW & BIBLIOGRAPHY

Building Consent Exemptions Policy and Risk to Users: Residential Access

Routes in New Zealand.

Southern Institute of Technology

MGT816, Special Topic

Dr. Robyn Hill

July 25th, 2021

MGT816 ASS 2 Roy Stewart 2018002263

A multidisciplinary approach has been used to investigate the ramifications of non-

MGT816 Ass 2, Roy Stewart 2018002263