Floating

Abstract
Global warming refers to the changing nature of climate; the rise in the global average
temperature increases the inevitability of phenomena such as tsunamis, droughts and flood
events. Flooding represents the most common natural disaster within the UK, where
subsequent flood risk exposes the homeowner at a property level. Consequently, flood-
resilient and resistant measures are critical to the safeguarding and preservation of property
assets, as well as the country’s infrastructural systems. In the context of London, these assets
are particularly concentrated at the waterway corridors.
Concurrently, social deprivation and the subsequent demand for social housing remains a
prevalent issue in London. The delivery of affordable housing to meet the demand of an
increasing population is slow and restrictive; subsequently, this places pressure on the
Government to execute further measures. Notably, the top 10% most deprived households in
the country reside in areas of high flood risk, particularly surrounding the River Lea in East
London. In order to confront and mitigate flood risk in areas of social deprivation within
London, this research project investigates and justifies an innovative measure: the Floating
Home. The context of governance, planning procedures and urbanisation is explored, to
further an understanding of how the Floating Home may be implemented within London.
The Floating Home represents an experimental and unfamiliar design in the UK, with its
origins rooted in the Netherlands. The first prototype has recently been launched in
Chichester, Sussex, under ownership of its founding company, Floating Homes Ltd. The
technology behind the Floating Home is crucial to its distinction from other existing
floatation and flood-resilient structures, which is explored in further depth within this study.
The social, political and technological context of preceding case studies are also evaluated for
further insight and comprehension. These case studies range from the single Floating Home
dwelling in Chichester, the Urban Rigger affordable student accommodation in Copenhagen
and to the floating houses in the city of IJburg in Amsterdam.
A contemporary case study has ensued in the vicinity of the River Lea in East London, within
Haggerston, Hackney, where implementation of the Floating Home is conceivable. To assess
the likelihood and viability of implementation in this area, interviews with stakeholders
involved in the contemporary case study have taken place and formed the primary research
phase of the project. Observations and statements were gathered from the participants, which
included a property developer, the senior director of Floating Homes Ltd., a prospective
Floating Home occupant, a neighbouring land-based property resident, a social entrepreneur
and a structural engineer. The primary and secondary research has been analysed collectively
to deduce any paradigms in the investigation and the subsequent findings are presented. The
emerging paradigms consequently aided in determining opportunities and limitations
surrounding implementation of the Floating Home in London. An opportunity is established
where the Floating Home can be suitable for first time buyers, and where it represents a
holistic flood-resistant measure and coheres with a need for new technology within existing
flood-proof measures. A limitation associated with the original hypothesis lies where the
Floating Home is not perceivable for social housing. Additionally, further research is required
to deduce which governmental bodies would need to be approached for implementation of
the project, as well as further investigation surrounding London urbanisation and running out
of land to justify building out onto water for the Floating Home, where sufficient evidence
was unattainable within this project.
Table of Contents
Abstract
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………. i
Acknowledgements
………………………………………………………………………………………. ii
1 Introduction………………………………………………………..
1.1 The Problem………………………………………………………
1.2 Scope of the Project…………………………………………………
1.3 Aim and Objectives………………………………………………….
1.4 Limitations of Research………………………………………………
1.5 Chapter Overview…………………………………………………..
2 Literature Review…………………………………………………….
2.1 UK Flooding………………………………………………………
2.1.1 Construction on Floodplains…………………………………………
2.1.2 Existing Flood Resilience……………………………………………
2.1.2.1 Resilient versus Resistant Design………………………………….
2.1.2.2 Responsibility for Flood Mitigation………………………………….
2.1.2.3 Urban Protection and Property-Level Protection (PLP)……………………
2.1.3 Scope for Innovation………………………………………………
2.2 Social Deprivation…………………………………………………..
2.2.1 Social Housing…………………………………………………..
2.2.2 Urbanisation and Affordability………………………………………..
2.2.3 Vulnerability to Flooding…………………………………………….
2.3 Governance……………………………………………………….
2.3.1 Governmental and Non-Governmental Institutions………………………….
2.4 Planning…………………………………………………………
2.4.1 Planning on Land…………………………………………………
2.4.2 Planning on Water………………………………………………..
2.5 Floatation and Flood-Resilient Structures………………………………….
2.5.1 Floatation and Flood-Resilient Types…………………………………..
2.5.2 History of Floatation Structures……………………………………….
2.5.3 Design and Construction of the Floating Home…………………………….
2.5.3.1 Floating Home Materials…………………………………………
2.5.3.2 Floating Home Construction………………………………………
2.5.3.3 Floating Home Services: Centralised or Decentralised……………………
2.6 Case Studies………………………………………………………
2.6.1 Single Floating Dwelling: Chichester Prototype, Sussex, UK…………………..
2.6.2 Affordable Student Housing: Copenhagen, Denmark………………………..
2.6.3 Floating Community: IJburg Floating Houses, IJmeer, Amsterdam………………
2.7 Summary…………………………………………………………
3 Methodology……………………………………………………….
3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………….
3.2 Research Approach…………………………………………………
3.2.1 Qualitative Research………………………………………………
3.2.2 Quantitative Research……………………………………………..
3.3 Secondary Research………………………………………………..
3.4 Primary Research…………………………………………………..
3.4.1 Primary Case Study……………………………………………….
3.4.2 Research Interviews……………………………………………….
3.5 Data Analysis……………………………………………………..
3.5.1 Analysis Framework……………………………………………….
3.5.2 Analysis Code book……………………………………………….
3.6 Research Ethics and Validity…………………………………………..
3.7 Summary
4 Findings…………………………………………………………..
4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………….
4.2 Sampling of Interviewees……………………………………………..
4.3 Findings Approach………………………………………………….
4.3.1 Data Significance and Threshold………………………………………
4.4 Results of Data Analysis………………………………………………
4.4.1 Floating Home Suitability and Viability…………………………………..
4.4.1.1 Prototype and Showcase the Floating Home…………………………..
4.4.1.2 Floating Home Target Market……………………………………..
4.4.1.3 Mooring Rights……………………………………………….
4.5 Flooding…………………………………………………………
4.5.1.1 Global Warming and Natural Disasters………………………………
4.5.1.2 Building on a Floodplain…………………………………………
4.5.1.3 Scope for New Technology………………………………………
4.5.2 Floating Home Design and Construction…………………………………
4.5.2.1 Floating Home Construction………………………………………
4.5.2.2 Floating Home Materials / Durability………………………………..
4.5.2.3 Floating Home Comparison to Boats and Houses……………………….
4.5.3 Governance…………………………………………………….
4.5.3.1 Support from the Canal and River Trust (CaRT)………………………..
4.5.3.2 Support from the Council………………………………………..
4.5.3.3 Support from the Government…………………………………….
4.5.4 Planning……………………………………………………….
4.5.4.1 Planning Laws and Legislation…………………………………….
4.5.4.2 Planning Permission……………………………………………
4.5.5 Social Housing…………………………………………………..
4.5.5.1 Demand for Social Housing………………………………………
4.5.6 Urbanisation…………………………………………………….
4.5.6.1 Gentrification within London………………………………………
4.5.6.2 Running out of Land……………………………………………
4.6 Limitations of Results………………………………………………..
4.7 Summary…………………………………………………………
5 Discussion…………………………………………………………
5.1 Suitability and Viability of the Floating Home………………………………..
5.2 Flooding…………………………………………………………
5.3 Floating Home Design and Construction…………………………………..
5.4 Governance……………………………………………………….
5.5 Planning…………………………………………………………
5.6 Social Housing…………………………………………………….
5.7 Urbanisation………………………………………………………
5.8 Summary…………………………………………………………
6 Conclusion…………………………………………………………
6.1 Limitations of the Research……………………………………………
6.2 Practical Implications for Stakeholders…………………………………….
6.3 Recommendations for Future Research……………………………………
7 References…………………………………………………………
1 Introduction
1.1 The Problem
Climate change has instigated an exponential rise in sea levels, droughts, increased
precipitation and increasing variations in global and local temperatures. NASA (2017) have
predicted that by the end of the 21st century, a larger proportion of rainfall will occur within a
shorter amount of time, particularly concentrated within the Northern hemisphere and
including the UK; this increases variability and uncertainty surrounding the future risk of
flooding. Flooding stands as a significant national phenomenon and one of the most
expensive natural disasters for the UK economy. Set against a backdrop of continual flooding
within the UK, Her Majesty’s Government (2016) estimated 2.4% (8 million) properties are
at risk from damage through sea and river overflow; the 2007 floods alone saw a total of £3
billion in damages. HM Government (2016) have dedicated a budget of £700 million to
spend on flood defences and strengthening the nation’s resilience up to 2021, and
subsequently stated their plans to seek out new approaches and initiatives. Borrows (2007)
maintained that the aftermath of flood events is minimised through resilience in property and
infrastructure, as well as initiative from the public, so that lives are not at risk, damage is
reduced and recovery is expedited. Direct defences cannot and should not always be relied
upon with uncertainty surrounding future flooding, where the issue of resilience is made more
crucial (Borrows, 2007). Accordingly, a focus and dependency on property-level resilience is
paramount to managing risk of damage for UK civilians.
London is situated within a major England floodplain and is subsequently vulnerable to

fluvial flooding. Notably, the Environment Agency (2016) stated that 2013-14 saw 50
closures of the Thames River Barrier, set against the annual average of five times since 1982.
The Thames Estuary also represents the second largest river basin in the UK, with a size of
12,935 km2 (HM Government, 2016). The risk of flooding places great reliance on the
Thames River Barrier direct defence system. In 2009, the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE)
called on the Government for more integrated solutions and innovative long-term local
strategies in defence against flooding. With these concerns in mind, the vulnerability and
protection of the capital remains at the forefront for Government defence strategies on a
macro-scale (direct defences) and a micro-scale (property-level protection).
Currently, London encounters a shortage of 49,000 homes, coupled with a growing demand
from a population of 8.67 million civilians and a projected 10 million by 2030 (Greater
London Authority, 2015). The Callcutt Review (2007) identified a risk of ‘running out of
land’ with regards to new housing developments, pushing property prices up and placing
further pressure on the Government to provide affordable social housing for vulnerable low-
income families and individuals. To tackle the London housing crisis, the solution to build
outwards onto water appears as an increasingly viable solution, as countries such as Holland
and Denmark have previously succeeded. London Assembly (2013) highlighted an
opportunity to utilise over 100km of waterways,under ownership of the Canal and River
Trust (CaRT).
1.2 Scope of the Project

ICE (2009) specified that to handle the inevitability of a changing environment, a long-term
initiative must be adopted to alleviate the future effects of flooding as well as providing for a
vulnerable population. Due to this two-fold concept, a technological and innovative solution
is evaluated within this research project.
Williams (2009, p.12) explained that ‘Aquatecture—derived from merging water and
architecture—pertains to building types and adaptive re-use strategies that mitigate and
manage flood related threats’. The notion of Aquatecture is found in floatation structures,
such as the Floating Home, which is designed as a holistic flood protective strategy and
adapts to rising water levels. Considering flood resistance as a major aim, this dissertation
makes a detailed evaluation of existing floatation structure case studies inside and outside the
UK, to inform the feasibility for implementation of a Floating Home within London.
Resistance and resilience is evaluated on a property level and, therefore, a large-scale
infrastructure level is not considered. A literature review is also utilised to discover an
opportunity for the Floating Home, as well as stakeholder interviews as part of a
contemporary case study to determine how the Floating Home may be implemented from a
social, political and technological standpoint.
Through utilising untapped waterways in areas of deprivation, this research project also
explores the potential for the Floating Home to be made affordable and subsequently viable
for social housing. Due to uncertainty and a lack of available research surrounding floatation
structures as affordable social housing and none present in the UK, this forms the secondary
aim within the research project.
1.3 Aim and Objectives

The aim of this research project is to assess and evaluate the potential of the Floating Home
as a viable flood-resistant housing strategy, with the prospect of an affordable social housing
solution within London, UK.
The objectives of this project are:
1. To investigate the context of flooding and social deprivation within London, UK, as
well as a supplementary background overview on governance and planning procedures.
2. To study the design, construction and technology behind the Floating Home and
existing floatation structures.
3. To evaluate the feasibility and viability for implementing the Floating Home in
Haggerston, London.
4. To define the opportunities and limitations of the Floating Home.
5. To propose recommendations for future implementation.
1.4 Limitations of Research
Floatation technology is present in the UK; however, developments remain limited. Large-
scale floatation developments mainly subsist outside the UK, particularly in countries such as
Holland and Denmark. Therefore, differences in foreign planning practices must be
considered. Particularly where affordable social housing is concerned, this remains absent in
floatation technology and serves as a major limitation within the research project. This
dissertation considers the viability of the Floating Home within London: it should only be
viewed as a guide for other areas in the UK, seeing that each county may hold differences in
political and social acceptance.
1.5 Chapter Overview
Chapter 2 evaluates existing literature, to determine an opportunity for implementation of the
Floating Home. This includes a review of literature related to flooding, social deprivation,
governance, planning, floatation technology and explores existing floatation case studies.
Chapter 3 outlines the methodology employed for the research project. It compares the uses
of primary and secondary research, as well as qualitative and quantitative analyses to
determine an appropriate methodology for the purposes of this dissertation. A data analysis
framework has also been designed to provide a foundation for selection of appropriate data.
Chapter 4 reports on the contemporary case study and stakeholder interview findings
following analysis, accompanied by tables of data, graphics and quotations from participants
in the data research.
Chapter 5 discusses the findings from the interviews and makes comparisons and contrasts
with the research literature review and secondary case studies. Any initial assumptions are
discussed as to their validity and how well the data has corresponded with these.
2 Literature Review
2.1 UK Flooding
Rising sea levels, coupled with an increase in storm frequency, shifts an overwhelming
reliance on the UK’s flood defence methods and systems. The 2009 Climate United Kingdom
Projections (UKCP09) forecasted a sea-level rise of up to 76cm by 2095, with an ‘extreme’
upper bound of 190cm (United Kingdom Climate Projections, 2009 cited by ICE, 2009, p.4).
An upsurge in subsequent flood events poses a great risk and heightens vulnerability in areas
such as London, representing one of the world’s financial centres and most densely-populated
and deprived cities.
Whilst the Thames defences currently offer adequate safeguarding, Stern (2006) emphasised:
 The system will only provide protection for a 1-in-1000-year flood event until 2030.
 Afterward, flood risk will increase and protection will reduce to provide for a 1-in-50-
year flood event by the end of the century.
Stern (2006) highlighted that slight modifications may maintain and extend the defence’s
design life, but a long-term strategic approach is still required. It must be noted that whilst the
Stern Review (2006) is a widely-cited publication, any modifications to the defences since
2006 may have improved the mentioned statistics. Nonetheless, the EA (2012) emphasised
that the River Thames forms an immediate corridor between major assets at risk of flood
damage; these include infrastructure, transport, housing and parliamentary buildings within
London. Savills (2016) stated that the total value of London’s properties quantifies a quarter
of England’s total property value, whilst surrounding the UK’s second largest river basin.
This places London’s assets at a much larger risk compared to the rest of the country.
2.1.1 Construction on Floodplains
A floodplain represents an area of low-lying land, generally located adjacent to a stream or
river, where during a flood-event, is most susceptible to flooding. As major architects in the
‘Aquatecture’ field (term defined in section 2.5), Barker and Coutts (2016) underlined that
much of the UK population reside next to areas of high flood risk, such as river systems,
deltas and costs, drawn there by fertile land and the attraction of waterfront developments.
Since the 1900’s, half of the world’s wetlands, which act as natural storm buffers, have been
lost due to urbanisation and settlements developing adjacent to river basins (United Nations
Environment Programme News Centre, 2012, cited by Barker and Coutts, 2016, p.19). This
raises the exposure of properties to flood risk even more so and, as settlements expand, stress
on water resources increases (Barker and Coutts, 2016).
Whilst Barker and Coutts (2016) recognised the attraction of fertile land and living by the
water, it can also be argued that land prices are typically cheaper within areas of high flood
risk, making it a profitable investment for landlords. Within the UK, Priestly and Smith
(2016) stated that although three-quarters of properties exist in floodplain areas of low-risk
due to protection from direct defence systems, (i.e. areas with between a 1-in-100 and 1-in-
1000 annual chance of flooding) there remains a quarter of developments constructed in high-
risk areas, with a 1-in-100 or greater annual chance of flooding. Priestly and Smith (2016)
also highlighted that 9% of these floodplain developments (23,000 new homes) are being
constructed in areas with a 1-in-30 or greater annual chance of flooding, even where direct
flood defences are in place. These expanding floodplain developments place further pressure
on future flood protection strategies, to prevent greater damage should a flood event occur.
2.1.2 Existing Flood Resilience
2.1.2.1 Resilient versus Resistant Design
Flood mitigation measures are crucial to the safety of cities and properties, to minimise risk
from water ingress and subsequent damage. Two approaches are utilised as defence against
flooding: flood-resilient and flood-resistant measures. Butler et al. (2011) defined resilience
as the capacity of a system or community, after exposure to hazards, to return to an
acceptable level of functioning. Resilience can reduce the effect of water damage, even where
water is allowed to enter a structure, such as a wet-proof resilient building, discussed in
section 2.5.1. A flood protection measure designed to keep water out of a property is regarded
as flood-resistant. Resistant measures offer a ‘peace of mind’ for property owners, however
Lamond and Proverbs (2008) viewed the emotional stress of long periods of moving away
from home would be minimised by resilient adaptation, should a resistant building prove
inadequate.
2.1.2.2 Responsibility for Flood Mitigation
The administration and supervision of flood defences generally falls under the domain of the
Environment Agency (EA), the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA) and the local authorities; their responsibilities are outlined in Figure 2-1. Where
flood-proofing property on a micro-scale is concerned, Borrows (2007) emphasised that it is
entirely up to the homeowner’s discretion. Consequently, Booth et al. (2009) stated that this
sees only 6-9% of the household sector take measures at their own initiative; out of the 6-9%,
most have experienced flooding. Emphasis is needed to raise the homeowner’s awareness of
flood risk and protection.
Figure 2-1: Organisations responsible for flood risk management in the UK (EA, 2009)
2.1.2.3 Urban Protection and Property-Level Protection (PLP)
Flood defence systems exist on multiple scales: these range from coastal systems protecting
the country as a first line of protection, to direct defences, such as the London Thames
Barrier, protecting vital infrastructure. Typically, in urban areas, the threat of flooding also
relies on the capacity of integrated storm water management systems such as Sustainable
Drainage Systems (SuDS), to drain water from impermeable surfaces. An influx of water
occasionally exceeds the capacity of the system, causing overflow and increasing the risk of
local flooding. Dickhaut et al., (2011) argued that the presence of such systems also sees a
reduction of evaporation into the atmosphere, increasing the ‘heat island effect’ (where urban
areas are significantly warmer than the surrounding rural areas) and enhancing the effects of
global warming. Utilising natural systems in urban environments, such as Water Sensitive
Urban Design (WSUD) and employing effective Property-Level Protection (PLP) strategies
are examples of sustainable water defences on various scales.
Lamond and Proverbs (2008) viewed that the immediate instinct of a floodplain resident is to
keep water out their home and maintain protection of their property’s assets. HM
Government (2016) reported on residual risk measures in place such as PLP in the form of
raised electric sockets, flood boards and sandbags placed at openings. HM Government
(2016) also stated that demand for these does, in fact, remain low; this confirms the statistic
put forward by Booth et al. (2009), outlined in section 2.1.2.2. This low demand lies with the
confusion over who holds the responsibility of implementation and pay-out for such
measures, as well as the home-owner’s lack of knowledge that flood protection
implementation is even required for their dwelling.
2.1.3 Scope for Innovation
Whilst WSUD and PLP measures are becoming more prevalent, Bosher et al. (2007) called
on the construction sector for leaders in design to offer resilient and sustainable innovations.
Designers should utilise and ‘pre-empt regulatory changes regarding resilient and sustainable
construction and use them as an opportunity to compete in the sector nationally and globally’
(Bosher et al., 2007, p.9).
2.2 Social Deprivation
Figure 2-2 illustrates the Index of Multiple Deprivation within London. Multiple deprivation
represents a qualitative study of deprived areas in the UK, including social factors such as
income, health and employment. In isolation, London holds the largest concentration of 10%
of the most deprived areas, particularly surrounding the River Lea (Figure 2-2), juxtaposed
with the 10% least deprived areas surrounding the River Thames. Concurrently, Figure 2-3
demonstrates social housing as a proportion of all households, and forms the most
concentrated of all tenures (property ownership, mortgage on a property and renting) within
London, and a high proportion with 24% of all households.
RiRiver Lea
Figure 2-2: Map representing the Index of Multiple Deprivation within London, 2015,
compared to surrounding UK (top right image) (NAVTEQ, 2015)
Figure 2-3: Map representing social tenants as a proportion of all households in London,
2011 (GLA, 2015)
Comparing Figures 2-2 and 2-3 with the flood risk map in Figure 2-4, the highest flood risk
subsists particularly within the North-East London vicinity surrounding the River Lea, where
boroughs such as Hackney, Enfield and Tower Hamlets correspond with the most deprived
areas in Figure 2-2 and the concentration of social housing in Figure 2-3. This reinforces a
correlation between flood risk and deprivation surrounding London rivers.
Figure 2-4: Map representing the levels of flood risk throughout London (GOV, 2017)
2.2.1 Social Housing
Social housing offers affordable housing for low-income households and for those in need,
which is generally instigated and administrated by not-for-profit organisations. These
organisations fall under the governmental Department for Communities and Local
Government (CLG) (Shelter England, 2017). Notably, Pitt (2008) cited by O’Neill and
O’Neill (2012, p.5) outlined that those within the low and very low-income household
bracket represent one-third of all UK households, where 69% are in social housing.
2.2.2 Urbanisation and Affordability
The concept of urbanisation exists twofold: the first is through the creation of roads, drains
and buildings, creating impermeable surfaces in place of natural surfaces, increasing runoff
by five times and reducing 24-hour water retention by 40% (Adams and Watson, 2011, cited
by Barker and Coutts, 2016, p.20). The second is through the increase in migration of people
and communities to densely-populated urban areas. Specifically within London, the GLA
(2015) projected a population of 10 million citizens by 2030; this will increase the demand
for land, property and affordable social housing. Barker and Coutts (2016) recognised that
urbanisation, through the lack of available land, may result in more people located in high
flood-risk areas and floodplain developments, but it may also ‘increase the risk of flooding by
reducing the natural capacity of the ground to absorb water’ (Barker and Coutts, 2016,
pg.18).
2.2.3 Vulnerability to Flooding
The Stern Review (2006) highlighted that those within the low-income bracket often live in
high flood-risk areas, marginal lands and poor quality housing, which may be verified by the
maps presented in Figures 2-2 to 2-4. The EA established the top 10% most deprived of the
population were eight times more likely to reside within a floodplain, than those from the
10% least deprived within the UK (Stern, 2006). Those of a lower income will typically have
less financial leverage to cope with climate change, including lack of adequate insurance
cover (Stern, 2006) and sufficient flood measures in place.
2.3 Governance
Responsibility of administering matters such as UK-wide flood protection and the provision
of social housing ultimately lies with the UK Government. It is their responsibility to
maintain country security, welfare, economic management, as well as environmental
considerations. Intervention on a local level is not overseen by the Government, but is
managed by those defined in the section 2.3.1.
2.3.1 Governmental and Non-Governmental Institutions
In addition to the flood management bodies defined in section 2.1.3.2, and not-for-profit
social housing organisations in section 2.2.1, the following institutions are relevant to the
context of this research project, in order of responsibility:
 The Greater London Authority (GLA), relevant to city-wide planning matters such as

transport infrastructure, economic considerations and policing.
 The Canal and River Trust (CaRT), responsible for the provision of mooring rights, as
well as managing most canals and waterways in England and Wales, including the
London Regent’s Canal.
 Local Councils (for instance, the London Borough of Hackney), administering
council-wide planning matters, such as planning permission for housing and commercial
developments.
 Planning consultants, urbanists and architects, commissioned for design from the
above institutions.
2.4 Planning
In the context of planning for a house or boat at a local property-level, the following
processes are illustrated in Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6 respectively:
2.4.1 Planning on Land
Figure 2-5: Typical planning process for constructing properties on-land
2.4.2 Planning on Water
Figure 2-6: Typical planning process for constructing or mooring a boat on-water
2.5 Floatation and Flood-Resilient Structures

Extending on the definition of ‘Aquatecture’, Williams (2009, p.vii) defined this typology as
an ‘architectural adaptation…[where] water and architectural design can unite to produce
dynamic and reliable mitigation solutions’. Residents can feel ‘at one’ with the water,
emphasising the leisurely nature of the environment, but may also safeguard their properties
and possessions from flood risk as floatation structures rise with the water level. This section
considers types of floatation and flood-resilient structures, with a predominant focus on the
Floating Home.
2.5.1 Floatation and Flood-Resilient Types
Figure 2-7 illustrates types of flood-resilient and floatation structures, which may exist in the
following forms:
 The Floating Home: created and founded by the company Floating Homes Ltd., in the
UK. The design of the floating base is in the form of a hollow concrete hull, such that
the heavier the total weight of the structure (two-storey for instance), the deeper the hull
base is constructed to suit these needs. Douglas (2013) underlined the advantage of a
hollow concrete hull base is that no foundations are required; the superstructure is
dependent on the buoyancy of the floating basement. It is important to note that the
Floating Home typifies a flood-resistant structure.
 Amphibious House: completed in Cambridgeshire, 2015, which rests on the ground
but floats up with the water level, whilst remaining anchored to a piled guidepost
system. De Graaf (2012), a specialist in floating urbanisation, stated that this solution
utilises significantly more material for the excavation area below the house, as well as
the guidepost system.
 Elevated Building: a structure which is elevated on supporting piers, raised above the
predicted flood level. One disadvantage might lie with disabled access and natural
surveillance of the street (Barker and Coutts, 2016).
 Wet-Proof Resilient Buildings: a resilient building which operates via a sacrificial
ground floor, should a flood event occur. It involves designing to keep the ground floor
able to cope with this ingress, through intelligent materials and strategically placing
possessions (Barker and Coutts, 2016).
Figure 2-7: Google Sketchup diagram of a Floating Home, Amphibious House, elevated
building and wet-proof resilient building (left to right); all are flood-designed structures
(Google Sketchup, 2017)
2.5.2 History of Floatation Structures
The arrival of habitable floatation structures was made possible over 50 years ago in the
Netherlands, as a measure for adapting to rising sea levels through buoyant technology;
particularly where 60% of the Netherlands is below sea level (Junak, 2016). The Dutch have
since developed the floatation technology into vast habitable developments, such as the
floating houses of IJburg in Holland (discussed in section 2.6). Bueren et al. (2006) viewed
that this case offered an accelerator for construction technology and a prototype to test the
waters in this innovative approach. Presence of this technology in the UK is limited, but not
absent: one of the first Floating Home prototypes was launched in Chichester, Sussex, in June
2016 (Figure 2-8).
Figure 2-8: View from exterior and interior of the Floating Home Chichester prototype
(image by author)
2.5.3 Design and Construction of the Floating Home
After review of existing technologies, this section focuses on the design and construction of
the Floating Home specifically as a floatation structure, due to an opportunity for a Floating
Home contemporary case study (discussed in section 3.4.1), where collaboration between the
senior director of Floating Homes Ltd. and numerous stakeholders has ensued.
2.5.3.1 Floating Home Materials
The elegance of the design owes to the hybrid technology behind the floating hull
substructure, which consists of reinforced concrete or reinforced concrete with expanded
polystyrene (EPS). De Graaf (2009) confirmed the addition of polystyrene in the concrete
mix decreases the overall density of the foundation and enhances the structure’s buoyancy,
however this approach is generally more expensive than a hollow concrete foundation.
Furthermore, Junak (2016) emphasised where the reinforcement is encased in concrete, this
prevents rusting and condensation collecting at the base, enhancing the virtually
maintenance-free appeal of the floating technology over other technologies.
2.5.3.2 Floating Home Construction
A major advantage for the construction of a Floating Home is the application of a modular
system. The modular Floating Home substructure and superstructure is generally pre-
fabricated, which are later brought to site, then lifted and fitted together, as demonstrated in
the construction sequence in Figure 2-9. Moon (2012) emphasised the advantage and
opportunity for speed in mass-production and similarly, Goodier and Pan (2013) in ‘The
Future of UK Housebuilding’ RICS report highlighted the potential of modular buildings and
the positive impact on future housebuilding.
Figure 2-9: Google Sketchup diagram of construction sequence for the Floating Home
(Google Sketchup, 2017)
According to Junak (2016), the dwelling substructure takes a total of two months to construct,
whereas the superstructure takes as little as two weeks. The benefits of the modular
construction system are that these two components can be built simultaneously to avoid delay
and large modular systems can be built at one time.
In terms of cost, the home costs in the range of £150-200,000 (Junak, 2016), which is
constructed according to building regulations (BS 3632) as a permanent residential park
home. Junak (2016) believed that although this cost can be compared to a normal land-based
home, the benefits behind constructing the home within an area susceptible to flooding is that
the land costs (and therefore mooring costs) are far less. This is due to a lack of demand for
such land, resulting in cheaper total life-time costs.
2.5.3.3 Floating Home Services: Centralised or Decentralised
For smaller developments such as the Chichester Floating Home prototype, a centralised
system is recommended. An encased pipe system within the concrete hull base operates via a
pump (Figure 2-10, left image) to transport water and wastewater back to the bank at which
the house is moored (Junak, 2016), as well as the electricity supply. This connects to the
adjacent ‘centralised’ water management system on land (Figure 2-10, right image).
Bueren et al. (2006) highlighted the advantages of separating the IJmeer City water
management system from the large centralised infrastructure system of Amsterdam, to test a
new ‘decentralised’ design. A decentralised facility utilises a biogas energy source and
evaporative cooling from the surrounding water: Daglio (2014) emphasised this reduces the
need for mechanical ventilation and subsequent energy consumption.
Figure 2-10: Google Sketchup diagram of Floating Home centralised services in hull base
(left), which connect to the services systems on land (right) (Google Sketchup)
2.6 Case Studies
The previous sections introduced flood-resilient and floatation structures as a means of
mitigation against rising sea levels and dealing with flood occurrences. The following case
studies focus predominantly on different scales of floatation structures, ranging from a single
dwelling to a floating community.
2.6.1 Single Floating Dwelling: Chichester Prototype, Sussex, UK
Figure 2-11: The Floating Home prototype, Chichester, UK (Floating Homes Ltd., 2016)
Floating Homes Ltd. showcased the first Floating Home prototype within the Chichester
Canal, Sussex (Figure 2-11). BACA Architects were employed to design the prototype,
which consisted of a modular superstructure, supported by a floating concrete hull foundation
base. This involved construction in two stages: the foundation base was casted and formed in
the Netherlands, which was then transported over to the UK, whereas the modular
superstructure was prefabricated in a UK-based factory. The two were brought to and
assembled on site to form the Floating Home.
The Floating Home operates via a ‘centralised’ water management system and connects to
the adjacent services on land (detail discussed in section 2.5.3.4). This enables the Floating
Home to operate exactly like a land-based dwelling and underlines the distinction from a
typical houseboat.
The Floating Home prototype is situated on a disused canal via a residential mooring.
Floating Homes Ltd. was able to obtain permission from the Chichester District Council for
the home after a ten year planning process, as well as the leasehold to the residential mooring
from Chichester Harbour Conservancy. Junak (2016) emphasised that these processes
(illustrated in section 2.4) form the integral phases which are needed to construct any
houseboat, barge, boat or Floating Home. With planning permission granted to launch the
first prototype, this provided the opportunity to showcase the Floating Home as an idyllic
balance between canal and land-based living. Williams (2009, p.12) highlighted ‘people have
an unexplainable connection and desire to live by the water’ and Rijcken (2006, p.1) viewed
living on water as an attractive way of life for ‘transportation, recreation [and] pleasing
reflections’.
2.6.2 Affordable Student Housing: Copenhagen, Denmark

The construction of the ‘Urban Rigger’ was commissioned to provide affordable and
innovative, sustainable accommodation for local students in Copenhagen. Designed by
Bjarke Ingels Group, the structure comprises a concrete hull floating island, supporting nine
shipping containers and forming twelve student housing units (Figure 2-12). The function of
the student accommodation relies upon a decentralised water system and the use of energy-
sustainable methods.
Figure 2-12: Aerial view of Urban Rigger (left) and shipping container, pre-installation
(right) (UrbanRigger.com, 2016)
The Urban Rigger is designed for an environmentally-conscious planning requirement,

posing major benefits over a typical land-based dwelling. Figure 2-13 demonstrates the use of
hydro-source heating, which employs the surrounding seawater as a natural source for heat
transfer, operating via a heat exchanger. This system, dissipating latent heat from the
surrounding waters in summer months and retaining heat during winter months, reduces
emissions by 81% compared to conventional heating systems using gas, oil or grid power
(Urban Rigger, 2016). Dickhaut et al. (2011) cited by Daglio (2014, pp.150-6) emphasised
that such strategies can fall under the ‘water sensitive urban design’ umbrella, which reduces
the possibility for environmental impacts.
Figure 2-13: Urban Rigger heat pump heating and cooling processes (UrbanRigger.com,
2016)
Copenhagen, Denmark, is regarded as one of the top nine most expensive cities in the world
to live (Brinded, 2016). Kim Loudrup, founder of the Urban Rigger and originator of the idea
for the use of floating shipping containers, sought to offer affordable student accommodation
within the densely-populated city, where untapped local waterways were utilised (Urban
Rigger, 2016). Planning permission was granted from Copenhagen City Hall on its first
application. This demonstrated that the Urban Rigger was possible where administrative
stakeholders agreed and recognised advantages associated with such a development, as well
as the appropriate space for moorings (Loudrup, 2016, cited by Balslev, 2016). This context
is something that could be carried through to London, another of the costliest cities in the
world.
2.6.3
Floating Community: IJburg Floating Houses, IJmeer, Amsterdam
Figure 2-14: IJburg artificial islands aerial view (left) (dRO Amsterdam, 2016) and floating
houses in IJburg City (right) (Friso Spoelstra, 2013)
In 1996, the Dutch municipality launched a new land reclamation project, named IJburg, for a
group of six artificial islands located on Amsterdam’s IJ Lake, IJmeer (aerial view (left) in
Figure 2-14) (Bemmelen and Steenbergen, 2011). Designers Marlies Rohmer and Floris
Hund included the integration of floating houses, illustrated in Figure 2-14 (right), to form
part of the urban design, with completion in 2011. Bemmelen and Steenbergen (2011)
outlined that the IJburg project was intended to tackle problems where the area is largely
located below sea level and historically, has been subjected to flooding. Further expansion in
population density and urbanisation within Amsterdam meant the area was highly vulnerable
to extreme flooding events; IJburg was realised (De Graaf, De Giesen and De Ven, 2007,
cited by Bueren et al., 2006, p.4).
Bemmelen and Steenbergen (2011) also stated that the IJburg land reclamation was thought
to have environmental consequences on the surrounding ecology, where a ‘pancake method’
forming layers of consolidated sand was utilised. This process was seen to disrupt the local
bird habitat and fish shoals within the lake (O’Sullivan, 2015), as well as erosion of the sea
bed and pollution (De Graaf, 2012). The inclusion of floating houses helped to counteract this
process of construction, where its effects are far less compared to that of the islands and does
not rely on a ‘pancake method’. IJburg was able to reap the benefits of a decentralised water
treatment system (Bueren et al., 2006), as discussed in section 2.5.3.4, which is fully separate
from the large centralised water infrastructure on the adjacent land, as with the Urban Rigger,
Copenhagen.
Huang-Lackmann and Lovett (2016) suggested that the commodity of living out on water
may well be associated with a higher price tag and IJburg may have deviated from affordable
housing. De Graaf (2009), after reviewing the TU Delft-OTB questionnaire results of
potential buyers for floating houses in the Netherlands, realised they generally held a high
education, a high income and were over the age of 25, concluding the technology as a ‘small
luxury market’ (De Graaf, 2009, p.92). De Graaf (2009) also recognised the growing market
demand for floating houses and that large-scale developments would eventually trend
towards catering for the low and middle-class market.
The Dutch Municipality relied predominantly upon the Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening (DRO –

Department of City Planning) to pursue the IJburg development, as well as numerous public
agencies in the design and planning process. In March 1997, a referendum was held and the
project ensued, but was met with opposition from pressure groups due to the potential
ecological impacts of the land reclamation (Scottish Government, 2010).
2.7 Summary
This Literature Review chapter has discussed the uses of flood-resilient and floatation
structures as a means for adapting to the prevalent rising sea levels. As such, this research
project focuses primarily on floatation structures, specifically the Floating Home. An
innovative solution is needed to tackle issues related to the lack of social housing in London
and awareness of property-level flood protection measures. The discussed case studies can
present a case for the Floating Home suitability and viability within London specifically.
3 Methodology
3.1 Introduction
This chapter evaluates methods and techniques available for research analysis and deduces a
suitable analysis tool to address the research subject. A structured framework has
subsequently been applied to the collection of data, where ethics has also been considered
and maintained. The research findings are then presented in chapter 4.
3.2 Research Approach
3.2.1 Qualitative Research
Broadly within data collection, should the research question warrant a descriptive response, it
is regarded as qualitative data. Qualitative research can be considered a less-structured
approach with more emphasis on the interviewee’s personal perspective through open-ended
questions, when compared to quantitative research (Bryman, 2012). A qualitative approach
can be employed by means of interviews, focus groups, observations or case studies. For the
purposes of this research project, a case study was evaluated through structured and focused
interviews. These methods were selected based upon the context of a real-life, contemporary
case study for the Floating Home, where an interview framework provided adequate insight
from all stakeholders involved in the process and sufficient access to data surrounding the
case study was available.
Yin (2014) viewed a case study as an appropriate research tool if the focus of the study is a
contemporary phenomenon. Once a case study is determined, numerous methods for
structuring case study analyses may be employed, such as ‘chronological structures’ and
‘suspense structures’ as suggested by Yin (2014). For case study analysis, an ‘explanation
building’ technique was utilised, as a hypothesis-generating process. This method employs
explanations of the case study data, which reflect theoretically significant propositions and
with the goal of developing ideas for further study. To reduce the threat of bias, referral to the
original purpose of the inquiry has been be maintained and key informants have reviewed the
case study evidence (outlined in section 3.6). Explanations from the data findings are
presented in the discussion, conclusion and recommendations.
Research interviews were selected instead of written questionnaires or surveys, due to the
beneficial, interpretive nature of interview questions and developing alternative concepts that
may not have originally been considered. The use of interview questions also prepared
interviewees for sensitive questions beforehand, due to the confidential nature of the case
study. Where the interviewee did not understand, questions could be clearly explained by the
researcher (Kumar, 2011). A structured interview model was also performed, based upon a
predetermined set of questions but included scope to ask further questions, should the
response have warranted further questioning. Gomm (2008) viewed that within loosely-
structured interviews, interviewees and interviewers have more scope to turn facts into stories
and deviate from the original research questions, therefore, a structured model provided
guidance for the interviewees. A mixture of open-ended and closed-ending questions were
also employed within the interview guide.
Once conducted, qualitative interview data can be analysed using an array of methods,
including ‘linguistic analysis’ and ‘narrative analysis’, where themes may be predicted
beforehand and links between the past and present take place. A ‘grounded-theory’ thematic
analysis was selected on the basis of a progressive identification of concepts (subthemes) and
themes, which emerged from the interview data. A framework was also created for this
analysis, drawing comparisons and contrasts between different respondents, to deduce the
occurrence of themes and concepts as a quantity. This qualitative data is presented in the
findings in a quantitative manner, utilising a triangulation method.
Potential limitations of qualitative research may arise from ‘reflexivity’, where the
researcher’s perspective unknowingly influences the interviewee’s responses in an interview
scenario (Yin, 2014). Other forms of evidence were therefore relied upon, such as the
Literature Review in chapter 2 and Case Studies in section 2.6.
3.2.2 Quantitative Research
Should the research question warrant a categorical response, this can be either qualitative and
quantitative data (triangulation), or simply quantitative data (Kumar, 2011). As a grounded-
theory approach produced qualitative data, the statistical significance was deduced
quantitatively, through totalling the occurrences of specific responses or themes: this is
presented as percentages within the Findings, chapter 4. Within qualitative data, over-detailed
or digressing responses are sometimes encouraged as it can bring other important concepts to
light, which is disregarded in quantitative analysis (Bryman, 2012). A hybrid system was
therefore employed: analysing qualitative data quantitatively.
3.3 Secondary Research
A literature review was conducted prior to the primary research phase, to evaluate the
existing literature surrounding flooding, governance, social housing, floatation and flood-
resilient structures. The literature review has been structured via a series of themes, which
were then used as a foundation to inform the interview questions. Books, peer-reviewed
journals, articles and websites based upon these themes were carefully selected for their
research validity, to inform the literature review. The 2016 Flood Expo at the ExCeL Centre,
London, was also utilised as background investigation for existing flood measures.
Three case studies were selected to demonstrate the different scales of floatation
developments: the Chichester Floating Home (a single floating dwelling), the Copenhagen
Urban Rigger (affordable and floating student housing) and IJburg City (a large-scale floating
community). Some primary research took place for the Chichester Floating Home prototype
through informal conversations with the senior director of Floating Homes Ltd.
3.4 Primary Research
3.4.1 Primary Case Study
Figure 3-1: Timeline graphic representing past and future steps for initiation of a Floating
Home prototype in London
An opportunity arose to launch the first, single dwelling Floating Home prototype in
Haggerston, within the London Borough of Hackney; this formed the basis for the primary
research case study. A timeline of the case is illustrated in Figure 3-1. The development
aimed to launch a single-storey dwelling, similar to the Chichester prototype, to be moored
outside the 2-4 Orsman Road property; the map in Figure 3-2 outlines the ownership
boundaries. Haggerston, East London, was selected as the location for the prototype due to a
number of factors; implementation in London would provide a breakthrough for the Floating
Home design, considering the planning constraints in each borough. There is associated flood
risk with the Thames Estuary, as the second largest river in the UK and a basin size of 12,935
km2 (HM Government, 2016). Finally, although Hackney has undergone an extent of
gentrification and represented the 11th most deprived local authority district in 2015
(Hackney.gov.uk, 2015), a high concentration of deprivation still exists, as illustrated in
Figure 2-3. A flood-resistant and potentially affordable Floating Home may provide a
solution to these challenges.
Figure 3-2: Haggerston aerial view, annotated with surrounding landlord ownership
boundaries and potential Floating Home footprint (Google Maps, 2016)
3.4.2 Research Interviews
During stakeholder selection for the case study, a technique of ‘snowball sampling’ was
utilised, which involved recruiting interview participants through acquaintances of those
involved in the project and those most likely to be affected by the findings of the study. The
architect of the Chichester prototype was unable to grant an interview but did, however,
suggest conducting research from his published book ‘Aquatecture: Buildings Designed to
Live and Work with Water’, which has been incorporated into the literature review.
Secondly, a London planner also denied an interview as part of the research, which may have
limited the findings related to planning.
Interviews took place with six stakeholders during the primary research phase: these are
presented in the Findings (chapter 4). Each interview took place face-to-face or via Skype; all
were recorded using an AV recording device (all recordings are provided on the attached
USB flash drive). The interviews covered a duration period between 45 minutes and 120
minutes, depending on the interviewees time constraints, and covered sections within the
interview guide headed ‘General’, ‘Social Housing and Planning’, ‘Floating Homes’, ‘Case
Study’ (of relevance) and a ‘Rounding Up’ section (a copy of the interview transcripts are
provided on the attached USB flash drive). A separate data analysis was considered for each
interview, where results were kept relative to consider the duration of the interview. Any
incentivising beforehand was minimised and all interview questions, as well as a pro forma
permission slip, were sent to the participant ahead of the interview (discussed in section 3.6
on Research Ethics).
3.5 Data Analysis
Grounded-theory analysis was the selected approach for analysing the interview data. The
framework for the analysis is demonstrated below, as well as the devised code book for
analysis of the data.
3.5.1 Analysis Framework
 As suggested by Kumar (2011), two interviews were initially utilised to test the
grounded-theory technique, whereby verbatim responses were examined and category
identification was used to determine the main themes that emerged from the data. Codes
were then assigned to these themes. Interviews were reviewed again, to determine the
sub-categories named ‘concepts’, which fell under the main themes.
 Themes and concepts underwent constant comparative analysis and refined until
saturation point, where no new themes could be identified and paradigms in the data
were established.
 Rules were assigned via a code book, (section 3.5.2) to aid determination of the
themes, concepts and interdependencies for the rest of the data analysis.
 All coded data was recorded quantitatively in Microsoft Excel, which provided a tool
for determining how frequently each theme and concept occurred within the individual
interviews. This was expressed as a percentage, to demonstrate its significance.
 Possible limitations of the analysis lay with departing from the original problem
question, fragmentation of data and a possible vagueness in how themes were identified.
Bazeley (2013) argued to justify why and how each theme is important: this is discussed
in the Findings, chapter 4.
3.5.2 Analysis Code book
 Themes were first determined from the meaning behind the respondent’s answer and
which broad theme appropriately reflected their response.
 Concepts were not categorised into more than one major theme.
 If an individual theme or concept was inferred twice within the same response, this
only constituted as occurring a separate time if a completely different notion or context
was discussed.
 If a participant’s response was ‘I don’t know’, ‘no’, ‘there’s not’ or of the like, this
would not constitute as a theme or concept, due to lack of elaboration.
 Comparisons between similar themes and concepts were employed to refine and
reduce the final quantity of themes and concepts and all were validated by reviewing the
interview more than once.
 Any ‘waste basket’ responses, as outlined by Kumar (2011), that could not be
categorised were disregarded.
3.6 Research Ethics and Validity

Bryman (2012) highlighted moral universalism and that ethical precepts must be considered
for each participant within the research, thus ethics, privacy and confidentiality were
considered throughout collection of the primary data, as well as validity and reliability
measures. Confidentiality was ensured by sending interview questions to participants
beforehand and validity was maintained by sending transcripts to participants after the
interview for checking.
Yin (2014) also suggested the use of four tests for validity in a case study analysis: ‘construct
validity’, which uses multiple sources of evidence, such as interviews and direct
observations, and have key informants review the researcher’s case study evidence; ‘internal
validity’, involving pattern-matching and explanation building; ‘external validity’, utilising a
theory in a single case study; and ‘reliability’, which follows a case study protocol and
develops a database. These methods were maintained throughout the research project where
appropriate.
3.7 Summary
This chapter demonstrates the appropriate use of qualitative analysis for the purposes of the
primary research and justifies the use of a case study approach, explored through structured
interviews, with ethics maintained during the research. Whilst a qualitative grounded-theory
approach has been adopted for the interviews, this data has been analysed and represented in
a quantitative manner. Secondary methods were also employed via a literature review and
existing case studies. Findings from the primary research methods are discussed in the next
chapter.
4 Findings
4.1 Introduction
Raw data surrounding the Haggerston Floating Home prototype case study was collated
through a series of structured interviews, to determine the feasibility and viability of
implementation for the Floating Home. The following data, by means of the methodology
framework in chapter 3, has been analysed and categorised via a ‘grounded-theory’ approach;
the findings are explored in the following sections of this chapter.
4.2 Sampling of Interviewees
To attain a variation in raw data via means of ‘snowball sampling’ (discussed in section
3.4.2), six stakeholders were selected through their involvement in the case study and covered
a range of disciplines. For the purposes of confidentiality (discussed in Research Ethics,
section 3.6), anonymity has been maintained and stakeholders are named the following:
 Person A: senior director of Floating Homes Ltd., based in the UK. Previously
involved in the Chichester Floating Home prototype, as well as the prospective
Haggerston prototype.
 Person B: director of a property development company and landlord to mooring sites
and neighbouring properties of interest. Involved in the prospective Haggerston
prototype only.
 Person C: social entrepreneur and project coordinator. Stakeholder in the prospective
Haggerston prototype only.
 Person D: structural engineer to the Chichester Floating Home prototype only.
 Person E: neighbouring property resident at the 2-4 Orsman Road site. Stakeholder in
the prospective Haggerston prototype only.
 Person F: potential Floating Home inhabitant. Involved in the prospective Haggerston
prototype only.
4.3 Findings Approach
Figure 4-1 illustrates the themes and concepts which emerged from the interview data. These
results were analysed quantitatively: tables containing charts with significance percentage
values, extracts from the interviewee’s responses and a discussion regarding its individual
importance to the research project are all integrated within the findings. As each interview
varied in length, it is important to emphasise that the percentages in Table 4-1 are expressed
as a value of the individual interview data subset, not of the entire data set. An ‘inside-out
and backwards approach’ has been utilised as suggested by Yin (2014), where tables of
quantitative data and relevant quotations have been inserted first, then accompanied by a
developed explanation. This has been used to inform the structure of the results and
theoretical sensitivity, to establish paradigms or contrasts between concepts and themes.
Figure 4-1: Concepts that emerged from the data, categorised under major themes (Floating
Home abbreviated FH)
4.3.1 Data Significance and Threshold
To maintain validity of the results and effectively discuss the data presented in Table 4-1, a
threshold criteria was determined to measure the significance of the presented data and define
a scope for what is discussed throughout the findings:
 The following major theme sections are ordered according to their overall average
percentage of occurrence across the entire data set (bottom row, Table 4-1): the highest
average being the most significant and the lowest average as the least significant.
 For any data above the theme’s average in Table 4-1, three interviewees with the most
relevant and compelling data related to that theme and the research hypothesis were
evaluated. This method has been employed to reflect an ‘explanation building’
technique, (outlined by Yin (2014) and stated in section 3.2.1), where data has been
selected to reflect theoretically significant propositions and with the goal of developing
ideas for further study.
 For the three themes with the lowest averages across the entire data set (planning,
social housing and urbanisation), only two interviewees were considered. This
corresponded with less concepts being allocated to that particular theme, discussed in
Limitations of Results, section 4.6.
 Concepts (subthemes) are discussed according to these selected people; only their
most significant concept within this theme was investigated.
 Any person’s data where their percentage was below the average for that particular
theme was neglected. This was to minimise partiality or misrepresentation of data.
As a final comment of the analysis phase, it is notable that the interviewees were not against
the Floating Home, as long as it is viable and suitable for implementation. Conversely, the
prominence of social housing within the data suggests, even when prompted through
interview questions, that this was not an area of significance for stakeholders.
4.4 Results of Data Analysis

Through the data analysis framework outlined in the Methodology, chapter 3, the following
results were deduced, where the main themes that emerged from the data set are displayed in
Table 4-1:
Table 4-1: Data results across all interviews with Person A-F. Each theme has been allocated
an average to determine its significance of the entire data set
Interviewee Floating Home Flooding Floating Home Design Governance Plannin Social U
Viability & & Construction g Housing n
Suitability
Person D 32.1% 16.1% 26.8% 7.14% 14.3% 1.79% 1
Person F 36.8% 17.1% 10.5% 22.4% 6.58% 3.95% 2
Person E 33.8% 37.8% 14.9% 4.05% 2.70% 6.76% 0
Person B 33.9% 14.8% 10.4% 22.6% 10.4% 4.35% 3
Person A 18.3% 33.3% 16.7% 13.3% 13.3% 1.67% 3
Person C 31.5% 24.2% 10.1% 14.8% 13.4% 2.01% 4
Average 31.1% 23.9% 14.9% 14.0% 10.1% 3.42% 2
Table 4-1 demonstrates that Floating Home viability and suitability formed the most
significant theme across the entire interview data, with an average of 31.1% for each
interviewee. In contrast, urbanisation represented the least significant and mentioned theme
across all interviews, with the lowest average at 2.54%. The following sections are ordered
according to the significance averages represented in Table 4-1.
4.4.1 Floating Home Suitability and Viability
Displayed in Table 4-1, Floating Home viability and suitability was most prominent for
Person F (prospective Floating Home resident) at 36.8% and least prominent for Person A
(senior director of Floating Homes Ltd.) at 18.3%.
4.4.1.1 Prototype and Showcase the Floating Home
The concept of prototyping or showcasing the Floating Home was most representative for
Person F, at 27.8% of the major theme (Floating Home suitability and viability) – their data is
illustrated in Table 4-2. When discussing the case study, Person F elaborated on the
suitability of the Floating Home for a borough such as Hackney, which would prosper as a
showcase. The accompanying statement is also displayed in Table 4-2 below:
Table 4-2: Floating Home Suitability and Viability theme breakdown for Person F
Major Data Key Concept Relevant Statement

Theme
Average
36.8% Prototype/Showcase the “Well I think it would be an amazing sho
Floating Home (27.8%) [Haggerston] is a very trendy area and th
lot easier around the area…I think we hav
example in one borough, as a case study,
that people will take it a lot more serious
Person F viewed that the Floating Home would need to be exhibited as a success in
Haggerston, conducive to other boroughs of London embracing this technology. Haggerston
is situated in the borough of Hackney, East London, which Person F has regarded as ‘trendy’
and forward thinking: an area more accepting of new trends. Person F is also a resident and
has worked within Hackney for the last ten years; their experience and knowledge of this area
is extensive.
4.4.1.2 Floating Home Target Market
The Floating Home target market represented the overriding concept for the property
developer, Person B, forming 28.9% of their data in Table 4-3. At the beginning of the
interview, Person B viewed that the Floating Home was most suited to families; this notion
was later contradicted in their interview. Person B and F were the only participants that
acknowledged a health and safety risk for families with young children and therefore, a lack
of suitability for this target market. Person B agreed that the Floating Home is best suited to
“people that have come out of education”, the accompanying statement is displayed in Table
4-3:
Table 4-3: Floating Home Suitability and Viability theme breakdown for Person B

Theme
Average
33.9% Floating Home “They’ve had a start from grandparents to buy
Target Market and I think Floating Homes could be a possibi
(28.9%) buyers as a group…And I would have thought
people would have a share in the boat [sic] …
moves on they can sell the share to another per
in.”
As a developer, Person B viewed an investment potential in the Floating Home; this notion
was also mirrored by Person C (social entrepreneur) who, regarding this concept, believed
that the assets of the Floating Home could be generated into an income. Person C also
believed in the notion of a ‘starter home’, where the Floating Home could provide
‘sustainable communities’. In creating sustainable communities: this term refers to a
community that is dependent on creating and sustaining economic and environmental
stability, promotes social equity and a government based upon citizen participation in
planning and policy-making (CONCERN Inc., 2017). Nonetheless, Person C departed from
the prospect of social housing and underlined a fitting Floating Home target market of first-
time-buyers, paralleling Person B’s views.
4.4.1.3 Mooring Rights
The provision of mooring rights was generally discussed in the context of the implementation
of the Floating Home and was therefore positioned under suitability and viability of the
Floating Home. Throughout their interview, Person D (structural engineer) recognised that,
providing mooring rights and a lease could be secured, this would enable implementation of
the Floating Home on the waterways. Mooring rights formed the central concept for Person D
at 32.4% of the major theme (displayed in Table 4-4). Person D viewed the legal framework
behind mooring rights was the most critical obstacle for the Floating Home implementation:
Table 4-4: Floating Home Suitability and Viability theme breakdown for Person D

Theme
Average
32.1% Provision of “[On moorings] …most of the time, they’re all
Mooring leases, so that will restrict how much money yo
Rights (32.4%) pay for it [the Floating Home] … Unless people
got a reasonable length of time, they are unlikel
reasonable home.”
Whilst Person B and C viewed the Floating Home as a potential investment venture (as
discussed in section 4.4.1.2), Person D highlighted that this is not viable unless an appropriate
length of time is secured on a mooring and it can be attained at an affordable price.
4.5 Flooding
With an average of 23.9% across the entire data set (displayed in Table 4-1), flooding formed
the second most significant theme within the interview data. The theme was most prominent
for Person E (neighbouring land-based property resident) at 37.8%, which also formed the
largest percentage in Table 4-1, and least prominent for Person B (property developer) at
14.8%.
4.5.1.1 Global Warming and Natural Disasters
Global warming and natural disasters represented the principal concept for Person E, as
displayed in Table 4-5. Person E’s observation is presented in Table 4-5:
Table 4-5: Flooding theme breakdown for Person E

Theme
Average
37.8% Global “I mean in Japan, because we had that tsunam
Warming/Natural and that kind of reignited the interest in this [
Disasters (25.0%) …and so in the last 300 years or so people fo
risk] …and that’s why that disaster was actua
than it could have been, you know.”
Within this statement, Person E paralleled the lack of preparation for natural disasters, such
as tsunamis, in his home country, Japan, with forgetting flood events in the UK. Person E
also believed this explained and justified settlements in risk-prone places, such as next to the
River Thames. If a flood event had not occurred within a certain period of time, it was not
within people’s minds, emphasising a lack of social awareness.
4.5.1.2 Building on a Floodplain
Similarly with Person E, flooding denoted the most significant major theme for Person A
(senior director of Floating Homes Ltd.), at 33.3% of their interview data. The concept of
building on a floodplain formed the overriding issue within this theme, at 29.7% (displayed in
Table 4-6). Person A asserted uninformed construction within floodplains; their view is
outlined in Table 4-6:
Table 4-6: Flooding theme breakdown for Person A

Theme
Average
33.3% Building on a “…in the planning process…if it looks like in the nex
Floodplain a possibility of flooding then all those houses should
(29.7%) resilience built into them and at the present nothing is
it. A lot of places have been built in floodplains…Ev
a blind eye to it.”
Person A reiterated that flood resilience must be an integrated strategy within housing design,
in order to reduce the risk of flood damage. At present, Person A believed insufficient
awareness and accountability is preventing protection reinforcement. Person A subsequently
indicated the limitations of the UK’s current planning processes and legislation in
implementing flood resilience within properties; planning processes are discussed further
within Planning, section 4.5.4.
4.5.1.3 Scope for New Technology
Whilst Person A recognised a weakness within current property-level flood-proof measures,

Person C (social entrepreneur) viewed an opportunity associated with existing flood
resilience in offering scope for new technology, which formed their focal concept, as 40.9%
of the theme flooding. Their assessment of this concept is displayed in Table 4-7:
Table 4-7: Flooding theme breakdown for Person C

Theme
Average
24.2% Scope for New “…if people are prepared to think bold and think
Technology know, I think whether it’s [Person A] and his Flo
(40.9%) BACA [Homes] doing the home that rises with t
think innovation is out there…People are pretty
Person C acknowledged that innovation was the key to harness the water for its opportunities
and ultimately, reduce the risk of flood damage. Person C also highlighted the Amphibious
House, designed by BACA Homes (discussed in section 2.5.1), as an example of utilising an
innovative flood-resistant measure, by way of the can-float technology.
4.5.2 Floating Home Design and Construction
Floating Home design and construction produced an average of 14.9% across the entire data
set, (displayed in Table 4-1), which formed the third most significant theme within the
interview data. This theme was most prominent for Person D (structural engineer) at 26.8%
and least prominent for Person C (social entrepreneur) at 10.1%.
4.5.2.1 Floating Home Construction
Floating Home construction exemplified the dominating concept in Person D’s data set, at
50% of the theme Floating Home design and construction (illustrated in Table 4-8). The
prominence of this concept for the structural engineer is foreseeable, due to their role in the
Chichester Floating Home project and the design of the superstructure. They viewed the
construction was somewhat challenging, which is demonstrated in Table 4-8:
Table 4-8: Floating Home Design and Construction theme breakdown for Person D
Theme
Average
26.8% Floating Home “Lifting it [was the main challenge]. The whol
Construction designed to be built off-site and then lifted, and
(50.0%) and then lifted onto the hull, which is not the b
but I think in this case it was the only way it co
Although the construction of the Floating Home unit was challenging, Person D did, on the
other hand, maintain that the structural design was not technically difficult. Whilst balancing
the weight and contents of the structure played an important role in the design of the
buoyancy, Person D later agreed that their structural design was not much different to a land-
based dwelling.
4.5.2.2 Floating Home Materials / Durability
Durability and materials of the Floating Home formed the overriding concept for Person A
(senior director of Floating Homes Ltd.), at 40.0% of their data (illustrated in Table 4-9).
Similarly with Person D, Person A paralleled the Floating Home with a ‘normal’ land-based
dwelling, in terms of cost related to materials for the superstructure, stated in Table 4-9:
Table 4-9: Floating Home Design and Construction theme breakdown for Person A

Theme
Average
16.7% Floating Home “The Floating Home is probably going to be
Materials/Durability because of the base that it’s on. But it depen
(40.0%) it’s built in. If it’s a very gravelly area and y
house, that can be more expensive…But gen
themselves are actually the same costs.”
Person A verified that the cost comparison of the Floating Home with a land-based house is
heavily dependent on the substructure and base material, which may be constructed using the
more advanced and expensive EPS or Flexbase, in place of a cheaper concrete hull (discussed
in section 2.5.3.2). Person A understood that unstable soil conditions on land may require
costly piling machinery, materials and on-site labour for installation of a suitable foundation.
4.5.2.3 Floating Home Comparison to Boats and Houses

Comparing Floating Homes to land-based houses and houseboats represented the central
concept for Person E (neighbouring land-based property resident) at 35.7 % (demonstrated in
Table 4-10), of theme Floating Home design and construction. Person E viewed that,
compared to a land-based dwelling, the living experience would be no different, but
compared to a boat, their view is outlined in Table 4-10:
Table 4-10: Floating Home Design and Construction theme breakdown for Person E

Theme
Average
14.9% Floating Home “…unless you have a really big one [boat]…
Comparison to so big, so yeah, it [the Floating Home] will b
Boats/Houses comfortable. So it’s probably comparable to
(35.7%) that people live in in Chelsea Harbour and stu
nice, it would be a similar experience to that.
Person E asserted that the size of the Floating Home will contribute to its overall
comfortability, when compared to a houseboat (which are generally narrow boats situated on
the neighbouring Regent’s Canal). Person E suggested that to attain a more luxurious living
experience on a houseboat specifically, this would require a larger vessel, which would
generally reside in more expensive areas, such as the Chelsea Harbour in London.
4.5.3 Governance
The theme of governance produced an average of 14.0% across the entire data set, displayed
in Table 4-1, which formed the fourth most prominent theme within the interview data. The
theme was most prominent for Person B (property developer) at 22.6%, and least prominent
for Person E (neighbouring land-based property resident) at 4.05%.
4.5.3.1 Support from the Canal and River Trust (CaRT)
Person B viewed that the contribution of governance was attributable to support from the
Canal and River Trust (CaRT), forming 56.3% (presented in Table 4-11) of the theme data.
Person B indicated that to implement the Floating Home, CaRT may want to retain space on
the canals or would require high mooring charges. Conversely, with regards to endorsement,
the developer also highlighted a lack of interest on all fronts, including CaRT. Their
statement is shown in Table 4-11:
Table 4-11: Governance theme breakdown for Person B
Major Data Key Relevant Statement

Theme Concept
Average
22.6% CaRT “… there’s no one to talk to, there’s no one out there w
Support Waterways [CaRT], government, council; they’re not i
(56.3%) no book, or there’s no access to any documents on wha
It really is amongst deaf ears, on every side.”
Through his experience in property development, Person B maintained that the challenge lay
with gaining backing and cooperation from all governmental parties, as implementation of
such a project would require total and complete endorsement.
4.5.3.2 Support from the Council
On the theme of governance, support from the council presented the most significant concept
for Person F (prospective Floating Home resident), as 36.4% of their data related to
governance (illustrated in Table 4-12). Person F’s statement is presented in Table 4-12:
Table 4-12: Governance theme breakdown for Person F
Major Theme Data Key Concept Relevant Statement

Average
22.4% Council “…I think each council is an island and I think the
Support more joined up thinking. It depends which council
(36.4%) doesn’t it.”
Similar to Person B, Person F confirmed that recognition, attention and acknowledgement for
an innovation, such as the Floating Home, remains a core issue within the theme of
governance. Notably, Person F suggested that should implementation of a Floating Home be
‘easier’ within one council, this may not necessarily be true for another council. An evident
separation and lack of unification between governmental bodies was further stressed by
Person F later in the interview.
4.5.3.3 Support from the Government
Support from the Government, on a macro-level, was the most overriding concept for Person
C (social entrepreneur), with 35.7% of the theme governance (displayed in Table 4-13).
Person C acknowledged that complacency is perhaps the issue with government
endorsement; their view is provided in Table 4-13:
Table 4-13: Governance theme breakdown for Person C

Theme
Average
14.8% Government “…I think it’s just with the policy makers…and th
Support policy for the use of the water have got to get their
(35.7%) and embrace it and [Person A] is a pioneer, he is c
people…I think it’s getting public and policy decis
set and attitudes…That I think is the biggest probl
it’s ‘Oh God this is different’ and that they’ll put u
they don’t understand it.”
It must be noted that although policy-makers may also refer to local institutions and
governmental bodies, Person C in this instance was referring to a macro-level governance,
accordingly the statement was aligned with this particular concept. Person C asserted that an
unyielding and inflexible government prevented improvement and innovation in flood
resilience and would prevent measures such as the Floating Home; the Government are not
open to it and the public may not understand it.
4.5.4 Planning
The fifth most significant theme across the entire data set was planning, which produced an
average of 10.1% in Table 4-1. The theme was most prominent for Person D (structural
engineer) at 14.3% and least prominent for Person E (neighbouring land-based property
resident) at 2.70%.
4.5.4.1 Planning Laws and Legislation
Planning laws and legislation formed one of the central concept for Person A (senior director
of Floating Homes Ltd.), with 35.7% of the theme planning (data shown in Table 4-14). On
planning laws, Person A’s judgement is displayed in Table 4-14:
Table 4-14: Planning theme breakdown for Person A

Theme
Average
13.3% Planning “The type of Floating Homes that we’re t
Laws/Legislation are so few around at the moment. There i
(35.7%) policy currently in place, I believe.”
In the instance of Person A’s data, where two concepts were most significant at 35.7%, the
apposite concept was selected for discussion by the researcher in the appropriate context.
Through experience in the construction of the Chichester Floating Home prototype, Person A
highlighted that no current laws or policies are in place to cater for such a technology. Person
A also mentioned that planning permission took over ten years for the Chichester project.
This statement also parallels with the view of Person B (property developer) in Table 4-11,
and highlighted a lack of guidelines surrounding the new technology.
4.5.4.2 Planning Permission
The concept of planning permission was most prominent in the dataset of Person B, as
property developer and landlord, someone familiar with the constraints of planning processes.
This concept represented 60% of their data related to planning (illustrated in Table 4-15).
Person B emphasised that planning permission was an issue for social housing construction
already – their view is presented in Table 4-15:
Table 4-15: Planning theme breakdown for Person B

Theme
Average
10.4% Planning “On social housing…the quality of the build and the ti
Permission quarter of a million houses that’s needed every year is
(60.0%) impossible to build. A couple of reasons, one, the land
in London are unaffordable for developers, secondly, p
permission is just so slow with local authorities…”
Person B confirmed that an apparent lack of social housing is attributable to a stringent and
drawn-out planning process which needed major simplification. The current planning process
slows the delivery of the necessary social housing developments, as well as the quality to
meet a high demand.
4.5.5 Social Housing
Social housing produced an average of 3.42% across the entire data set, as demonstrated in
Table 4-1, forming the second least significant theme within the interview data. The theme of
social housing was most prominent within Person E’s data (neighbouring land-based property
resident) at 6.76% and least prominent for Person A (senior director of Floating Homes Ltd.)
at 1.67%. Looking at the data in its entirety, it can be deduced that the theme of social
housing was not an area of significance for the stakeholder interviewees.
4.5.5.1 Demand for Social Housing
The concept of the demand for social housing was most representative of Person E’s data, at
50% of the major theme (displayed in Table 4-16). On social housing, their view is outlined
below:
Table 4-16: Social Housing theme breakdown for Person E

Theme
Average
6.76% Demand for “But in the UK, we are not convinced the Govern
Social Housing enough to provide for social housing…for low-inc
(50.0%) land, so I think people want to see them sort this o
onto water…”
Person E underlined that the Government are not doing enough to meet the demand for social
housing on land. Person E also suggested that the Government are permitting private housing
in place of social housing and that, until the issue of social housing is solved on land,
building on water cannot yet be considered. If “someone has to move to water and not to land
because someone sold it to rich people, then it doesn’t sound very good…”
A potential solution to urban gentrification within social housing areas was suggested by
Person B (property developer), where the demand for social housing also formed most
prominent concept of their data at 60% (shown in Table 4-17):
Table 4-17: Social Housing theme breakdown for Person B

Theme
Average
4.35% Demand for “Within London, the only way to get social housing
Social Housing that the Government need to, would be to take buil
(60.0%) they’ve taken at the moment which is under PD Rig
commercial buildings…”
Person B proposed converting buildings under Permitted Development Rights (PD Rights), to
meet the demand for social housing. These rights are the ability to commence building works
on a sight, which may not require planning permission. A discussion of PD Rights is
presented in chapter 5.
4.5.6 Urbanisation
Urbanisation represented the least significant theme across the entire data set, with an average
of 2.54% (as shown in Table 4-1). The theme of urbanisation was most prominent for Person
C (social entrepreneur) at 4.03% and least prominent for Person E (neighbouring land-based
property resident) at 0.00%.
4.5.6.1 Gentrification within London
The concept of London gentrification was discussed mostly within Person C’s interview, at
66.7% of the theme urbanisation (presented in Table 4-18). The social entrepreneur viewed a
lack of social sustainability within London; this view is set out in Table 4-18:
Table 4-18: Urbanisation theme breakdown for Person C

Theme
Average
4.03% London “…and the other challenge ultimately, the UK is be
Gentrification London, South-East-centric, that this is where peop
(66.7%) because there’s work …we have got to get that redi
industry, of business. So, otherwise it becomes very
become sustainable. Or to sustain London…”
Person C paralleled the widespread urbanisation in London with a concentration of wealth in

the capital. Person C also believed in the notion of “developing sustainable communities”
(highlighted in section 4.4.1.2), however, where more people are gravitating towards London
because of employment opportunities, equal opportunity diminishes.
4.5.6.2 Running out of Land

On urbanisation, running out of land represented 66.7% of the data from Person B (property
developer) (presented in Table 4-19). As discussed in section 4.5.1.3, Person B also believed
that a solution can be found with new technology. Their view is presented in Table 4-19:
Table 4-19: Urbanisation theme breakdown for Person B

Theme
Average
3.48% Running out “With London, there’s not enough land, full stop, to
of Land developments so there’s always going to be a proble
(66.7%) areas to do a development so how to get around it ne
technology.”
Person B emphasised that construction on floodplains continues, where land is sometimes

cheaper or the only option with the prevailing urbanisation of London. The developer viewed
that an innovation may be the only way to tackle the issue of running out of land.
4.6 Limitations of Results
 Some concepts crossed-over into more than one theme. Even so, concepts were
categorised into only one theme, according to the context in which they were discussed
most.
 Some statements were not directly linked to the concept in which they were
categorised, but the concept to which they were allocated was the most relevant and
representative.
 A limitation was associated with selecting participants’ data according to the
researcher’s observations. This method may have brought about ‘reflexivity’ as
described by Yin (2014) in section 3.2.1. Scope for reflexivity was minimised through
the use of an ‘explanation building’ case study analysis technique: referral to the
original purpose of the inquiry was maintained and key informants reviewed the case
study evidence (also discussed in section 3.2.1).
 A limitation was also possible where any participant’s data below the theme’s average
was neglected. Interviewees may have made critical and meaningful points within their
interview: the data selection may have led to the exclusion of critical and telling
statements.
 Some themes were more dominant within the data because they had more concepts
allocated to them. Nevertheless, this was unavoidable as concepts were allocated to the
theme dependent on the context in which they were discussed. As concepts could not be
included under more than one theme, this meant some themes were unbalanced.
 Some concepts amounted to the same percentage within a single theme. In this
instance, it was up to the researcher to appropriately select which concept to discuss in
the results.
4.7 Summary
Through completion of the data analysis phase by analysing qualitative data quantitatively
and presenting the findings in a systematic framework, this enabled the most significant and
telling data to be presented from the case study interviews. The experiment captured that
Floating Home viability and suitability formed the central theme of the primary research. On
the other hand, it was identified that urbanisation was not considered an important factor
amongst the interviewees. The presented concepts and themes have been compared and
juxtaposed against the secondary research, where paradigms in the research are evaluated in
the Discussion (chapter 5).
5 Discussion
Chapter 4 presented the results from six qualitative interviews, which were accompanied by
quantitative data as a significance measure of each theme and concept. As emphasised in
section 3.2.1, reflexivity is minimised in the following discussion, where paradigms are
deduced between the primary research (interview concepts) and the secondary research
(literature review and case studies). Established patterns are then evaluated and related back
to the research topic: implementing the Floating Home as a holistic flood-resistant strategy,
with the prospect of a social housing development. Any concepts that cannot be paralleled
with the existing literature are partially discussed or otherwise, neglected.
5.1 Suitability and Viability of the Floating Home

The primary research identified that suitability and viability of the Floating Home formed the
most prominent theme surrounding the Haggerston case study, with an average weighting of
31.1% over the interviews. The data offers indisputable evidence for showcasing a Floating
Home prototype, which may encourage widespread acceptance and recognition. This concept
was acknowledged by all interviewees and was particularly substantial for Person F
(prospective Floating Home resident) at 27.8%. Person F’s results revealed that a ‘trendy’
area, such as Hackney, would exemplify a suitable location for a prototype, with the view to
extending into more boroughs at a later stage. These results are broadly consistent with the
research of Bueren et al. (2006) (section 2.5.2), where the floating technology was thought to
offer a prototype to ‘test the waters’ and promote innovation in the case of IJburg, seeing that
at the time, no vast floating developments were yet present in the Netherlands. In this way,
the success of one prototype in Haggerston can offer the vision for another Floating Home
endeavour. That said, this concept simply scratches the surface of implementing the Floating
Home, which is not possible without further investigation of other concepts.
Unexpectedly, the interview data described for the first time that the floating technology may
be suited to a target audience of first-time buyers and those that have completed higher
education, which was proposed by both Person B (property developer) and C (social
entrepreneur). The analysis revealed that the concept of Floating Home affordability was
predominantly considered by Person C at 22%, which may be expected from a social
entrepreneur. This concept largely coincided with the concept of the Floating Home target
market, which was predominantly considered by Person B at 28.9%. Notably, De Graaf
(2009) reported that TU-Delft OTB studied the potential buyers of floating houses in IJburg
(discussed in section 2.6.3); it was reported the technology was suited to those with a high
income, a high level of education and with an age between 25-50 years old. Furthermore,
Holligan (2014) stated that an IJburg floating house starts at the equivalent of £310,000,
which is comparable to the average house price in Amsterdam (on-land) and as such, does not
offer affordable housing. Tom van Namen, a developer behind IJburg, highlighted that this
price reflects the large floor space the buyer receives, compared to a small apartment on-land
for the same price (Holligan, 2014). Nonetheless, the Floating Home is placed at risk of being
interpreted as a niche and luxury market; less suited to those within a low-income bracket.
The interview data is therefore consistent with the notion of individuals from a higher
education as a target market, highlighted in the TU-Delft OTB study. Conversely,
shortcomings could be associated with the TU-Delft OTB study, which took place in 2008,
and may exemplify an outdated source of data. De Graaf (2009) also highlighted that this
type of technology could cater for low-income individuals, if it was able to trend towards a
large-scale development, which is exactly what IJburg typifies. The Danish Architecture
Centre (2017) specified that IJburg is currently undergoing further expansion, which aims to
offer 30% privately owned housing, 30% middle income housing and 30% affordable
housing for rental, emphasising that whilst affordable housing is absent in IJburg, affordable
housing will be integrated at a later stage.
Arguably, implementation of the Floating Home is not viable should mooring rights not be
granted. On the provision of mooring rights, Person D (structural engineer) held the highest
percentage of data; at 32.4% related to this concept. Person D believed unless an appropriate
length of time can be secured on a mooring, implementing the Floating Home may not be
viable. These findings concur with the Chichester Floating Home case study (section 2.6.1),
which underlined that implementation was possible where mooring rights were granted by the
Chichester Harbour Conservancy (in the case of London, mooring rights would be granted by
CaRT). Junak (2016) believed the provision of mooring rights formed one of the integral
phases to implementing the Chichester Floating Home. It must be noted that planning
permission must not be neglected within the conceptual and developed design phases of the
project, which is discussed in section 5.5. If mooring rights are not attainable at the relevant
location, the Floating Home cannot permanently reside attached to the adjacent land.
Consequently, it may be considered that the provision of mooring rights is fundamental to the
implementation of the Floating Home.
5.2 Flooding
Whilst flood-proof measures are necessary to protect the homeowner’s assets and possessions
from water ingress, a lack of awareness surrounding responsibility of implementing flood
measures and property flood risk represents an issue. Approximately one third (33.3%) of
data related to flooding was associated with the concept of social awareness in Person A’s
results. The senior director of Floating Homes Ltd. argued that insufficient measures were in
place to prevent continual development on floodplain areas: this was accountable to a lack of
social awareness related to protection and absence of integrated flood resilience in planning
processes. In section 2.1.2.2, Borrows (2007) indicated that whilst organisations such as the
Environment Agency and local authorities might advise or promote PLP, it is entirely
voluntary and up to the homeowner’s discretion to implement (it can be noted that Person A
was not knowledgeable with this). Coupled with a low demand for PLP devices, as
emphasised by HM Government (2016) in section 2.1.2.3, both the primary and secondary
research confirm a prevalent lack of knowledge surrounding responsibility for flood
resilience, particularly where the homeowner is concerned. This may only be counteracted
through more encouragement of flood risk assessments and implementing PLP, or another
option: a new technology.
The existing flood-resistant and resilient technologies market may be viewed by some as
stagnant and lacking. The concept of scope for new technology was most substantial in
Person C’s results, at 40.9% of their data related to flooding. The social entrepreneur stressed
a gap in the flood resilience market; where pioneers were necessitated to design, and offer
innovative flood-resistant technologies. Discussed in section 2.1.3, Bosher et al. (2007)
proposed initiatives for resilient and sustainable designs and called on designers to encourage
a new mode of thinking. Similarly, the ICE (2009), discussed in section 1.1, called on the
Government for more innovative long-term strategies in flood mitigation. Interestingly,
section 1.1 also outlined that HM Government (2016) have dedicated a budget of £700
million towards flood defence and resilience up until 2021. The Floating Home may lend
itself well to this allocated budget and may offer a holistic, clear-cut flood protective solution
for the homeowner in place of a typical house (and would still require PLP which already
remains in low demand). Although, the Floating Home may not offer an entirely cost-
effective solution. As specified in section 2.5.3.2, the total cost of the Floating Home can
range between £150-200,000. For a self-built land-based bungalow within central London
(and with similar superstructure features), the build would cost virtually the same as the
Floating Home (Build It, 2017). The real cost benefit lies with the substructure; Person A and
D both claimed that the design of the Floating Home superstructure is no different to a land-
based dwelling. Adjacent to the Thames Estuary, London subsists predominantly on London
clay, where the underlying soil is susceptible to volumetric changes. Such soil conditions
may require particular attention to the structural foundations and in the instance of piling,
could produce larger material and construction costs, as well as additional on-site labour
time. Person A highlighted that the Floating Home would then represent a cost-effective
construction solution over a normal land-based dwelling. Whilst this may present an instance
where the Floating Home is suitable for London, this notion must be interpreted with caution,
whilst no available literature could support this idea.
5.3 Floating Home Design and Construction

Pre-fabrication of the Floating Home may offer another instance of convenience and cost-
effectiveness. The concept of Floating Home construction constituted 50% of Person D’s data
related to the theme of Floating Home design and construction; this was arguably foreseeable,
where Person D acted as structural engineer to the Floating Home Chichester prototype. In
section 2.5.3.2, Moon (2012) maintained that speed of construction is possible where the
floatation unit can be prefabricated, brought to and constructed on-site. Goodier and Pan
(2013) also upheld the positive impact associated with prefabrication in construction. In
contrast, the findings from Person D’s interview slightly refute from this notion presented in
the literature review. Person D recounted the challenge of constructing the Chichester
prototype, where the pre-fabricated substructure and superstructure were lifted into place
(demonstrated in Figure 2-9) and was perhaps not the most efficient method. Seeing that the
findings present a first-hand observation from the structural engineer of the Chichester
prototype, explicit advantages behind pre-fabrication cannot be ascertained. Person D did,
however, confirm that pre-fabricating and lifting the units into place was the only way
construction could ensue. Where pre-fabrication is successful, the Floating Home can be
made an intelligent solution, even more so compared to a land-based house which requires
piling, as well as PLP.
The Case Studies in section 2.6 demonstrated that utilising a centralised (the case of the
Chichester prototype) or decentralised (the floating houses of IJburg) services system may
have presented an advantageous opportunity over normal land-based houses and houseboats.
Findings from the primary research interviews were not synonymous with this idea, where
services were marginally mentioned by the participants.
5.4 Governance
Provision from the relevant governmental and institutional bodies is also fundamental to
instigating the Floating Home design. Implementation of a prototype may only ensue
through, as hypothesised by Person C (social entrepreneur) and F (prospective Floating Home
resident), unified and joined up thinking from multiple governmental bodies. Section 2.3.1
outlined that multiple institutional stakeholders are involved with implementing and
maintaining flood protective measures; these include planning consultants, the local council,
CaRT and in some cases, macro-scale institutions such as the GLA and Government.
Notably, the case studies presented in section 2.6 suggest that implementation of these
projects could not be realised without consent from governmental bodies relative to the size
of the project (i.e. the Chichester prototype through the Chichester District Council, the
Urban Rigger through Copenhagen City Hall and finally, IJburg through the Department of
City Planning, also where a referendum was held). Whilst it may seem reasonable to parallel
implementation in London with the Chichester prototype, it becomes more intricate in the
setting of the UK’s capital due to the sheer number of governmental stakeholders. Therefore,
the specific institution (or institutions) which may assist in launching a Floating Home
prototype in London cannot be determined through the research and this subsequently forms
one of the recommendations in section 6.3.
5.5 Planning
As discussed, Junak (2016) believed that alongside the provision of mooring rights, obtaining
planning permission also formed one of the integral phases to implementing the Chichester
Floating Home. The concept of planning permission was most representative in the data of
Person B; at 60% of the theme of planning. This denoted an expected result of a property
developer, who is very much familiar with planning processes in London. Person B stressed
that planning in London is time-consuming and often prolonged. In the case of the Chichester
prototype (section 2.6.1), the planning process took a total of ten years before permission was
granted. This is attributable to the planning behind a project such as the Floating Home,
which may require a complicated and timely two-fold process; planning on land and planning
on water, outlined in sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 respectively, as well as lack of available
planning standards and procedures in place for the Floating Home, emphasised by Person B
in section 4.5.3 and Person A in 4.5.4. Even more so with social housing, Person B also
stated that planning slows the delivery of the necessary social housing developments. A legal
framework needs to be greatly simplified and made much quicker before planning for the
Floating Home may be considered, regardless of the prospect for social housing.
5.6 Social Housing
The primary research intended to evaluate an unexplored hypothesis of the Floating Home as
a viable social housing option, where none of the case studies in section 2.6 exemplified a
floating social housing development. Conversely, social housing represented the second least
significant theme within the primary research phase, with an average of 3.42%, presented in
Table 4-1. It can be deduced from the data that the original hypothesis of offering social
housing is not so robust, where it is more suited to first-time buyers. What did become
apparent in the limited data, was that the existing system of social housing provision is
already a prevalent issue. Multiple interviewees recognised that the quantity and delivery of
social housing developments was insufficient and slow, particularly Person E (neighbouring
land-based property resident) with 50% of their data related to the demand for social housing.
A prominent point was also put forward by Person B (property developer): to resolve the
slow planning process behind the delivery of social housing, properties under PD Rights
could be released and converted into such developments. PD Rights allows for the conversion
of non-domestic properties, such as offices, barns or agricultural buildings, into residential
homes. On the contrary, in the London Councils Briefing (2015) on PD Rights, it was stated
that PD Rights offers an expeditious application process, only to consider contamination or
flood risks associated with the property, where notably, authorities cannot seek affordable
housing contributions. This revokes the possibility of quicker social housing delivery under
PD Rights and contradicts the original suggestion made by Person B. Even more so, the
Floating Home may not justify a swifter planning process for social housing. The existing
system of social housing is also an issue where Figures 2-2 to 2-4 suggest social housing is
being constructed in areas of high flood risk, particularly surrounding the River Lea.
Continual development in floodplains remains unclear and justifies further research
(suggested in section 6.3).
5.7 Urbanisation
This study reinforces that urbanisation is a prevalent issue in London and was acknowledged
by all interviewees. The cases of the Urban Rigger and the floating houses of IJburg (section
2.6) were intended to confront issues of urbanisation on land. Whilst the Floating Home may
have sought influence from such cases, no interviewees directly linked or argued the Floating
Home as a rationale for urbanisation. This verdict also remains limited where urbanisation
formed the least significant theme, with an average of 2.54% in Table 4-1. Nevertheless, the
researcher believes London urbanisation and the subsequent scarcity of land could argue a
compelling case for implementation of the Floating Home and forms a recommendation in
section 6.3.
5.8 Summary
This chapter has discussed and brought to light the principal implications associated with the
research subject. The findings suggest that the Floating Home can offer an innovative flood
mitigation measure, in light of flood risk in London and the associated lack of awareness
surrounding property-level resistance and resilience technologies. The ‘trendy’ vicinity of
Hackney is best suited to implementation of an innovative technology, possibly not because it
is an area of deprivation. This notion counteracts the affordability of the Floating Home,
which may be suited to first time buyers out of higher education. The research indicates an
issue of implementing social housing lies with an already slow planning process, and where
planning presented a painstakingly slow process for the Chichester case, this suggests the
planning process for the London prototype may pose a greater issue to the realisation of
implementing a Floating Home in London.
6 Conclusion
This study set out to assess whether the Floating Home may be upheld as a viable flood-
resistant housing strategy within London, UK, with the prospect of offering an affordable
social housing solution. Literature surrounding the context of flooding and social deprivation
within London, UK, has been evaluated and formed part of the secondary research phase.
Additionally, the literature review investigated current governmental and planning procedures
in London, to provide a political and legislative backdrop for implementation of the Floating
Home. The design, construction and technology behind the Floating Home and floatation
structures has also been presented, alongside three case studies on multiple scales,
constituting part of the secondary research phase. The case studies ranged from a single
floating dwelling to a floating student housing development and, finally, to a floating
community. These formed integral research examples of existing floating developments,
which were referenced in the Discussion, chapter 5.
This study also evaluates the feasibility for implementing a Floating Home in Haggerston,
London, as part of a contemporary and primary research case study. ‘Snowball sampling’ was
employed in the selection of interviewees, who all represented stakeholders involved in the
case study. Subsequently, a ‘grounded-theory’ analysis technique was utilised to deduce
themes and concepts within the interview data. The data revealed seven primary themes and
the findings were sorted according to the significance of these themes. Themes which
emerged from the data included: Floating Home suitability and viability, flooding, Floating
Home design and construction, governance, planning, social housing and urbanisation.
Opportunities and limitations of implementing the Floating Home in London were then
deduced, where comparison of the primary and secondary research established compelling
paradigms.
An opportunity to launch a Floating Home prototype in the region of Haggerston, situated in

Hackney, is available. Haggerston can represent an area more accepting of new trends, as
inferred from the primary research. The Floating Home typifies an innovative technology in
the UK, and the research suggests that implementation would offer a chance to ‘test the
waters’, certainly where new flood-resistant technology is needed; this reinforces the
suitability of Hackney. It must, however, be stressed that implementation is not possible
without the provision of mooring rights and would need an initial application through CaRT
before the project could be realised. On governance, whilst CaRT is a critical institution with
responsibility of the Haggerston canal moorings, it could not be deduced from the research
which governmental organisations would need to be approached for this new technology. It
has become evident that an opportunity may arise through unification of governmental and
institutional bodies, which is crucial to implementation of the Floating Home. Furthermore,
an opportunity for flood-resistant and resilient technology and innovation needed in the UK
may present itself, necessitating a dedicated budget of £700 million, as specified by the
Government. As the proliferation of flood events continues, much of the population reside in
areas of high flood risk and developments continue on floodplains. It has been shown that
resilient measures, such as PLP, remain in low demand and properties remain susceptible to
water ingress and flood damage. The issue of a low demand is due to the lack of social
awareness surrounding flood risk, as revealed by the interview data. Homeowners are perhaps
unaware that flood-proofing their property is entirely at their own discretion, and unaware
that flooding is a prevalent issue. In this way, scope for a clear-cut and holistic flood-resistant
floatation structure such as the Floating Home is possible and may serve as a reminder to the
general public that flood mitigation is necessary.
The already slow planning process poses a major limitation for launching a Floating Home
prototype and may also explain the unreliable delivery of social housing. Considering that the
Chichester prototype took ten years to implement, planning may prove even more difficult in
London. The findings revealed that the prospect of social housing is questionable, perhaps
due to a lack of literature surrounding this concept. Nevertheless, a higher cost may well be
associated with the Floating Home, which also held true for the IJburg floating houses, as
emphasised in the literature review. The Floating Home is quite possibly suited to those out
of higher education and those seeking to set foot on the property ladder as first time buyers,
with some sort of financial backing behind them. The Floating Home therefore represents a
well-needed technology and is a viable option for flood mitigation, but is not suited to social
housing.
By means of the primary research and conducting interviews, the study has nonetheless
revealed a new dimension; in that flood awareness, social housing and planning permission
within London is indeed a pressing problem. The findings suggest that exploring these issues
further would also be beneficial in other sectors and may reveal significant findings.
6.1 Limitations of the Research

Limitations associated with the research project and the research findings are outlined below;
 The primary research case study cannot be seen through to possible implementation,
due to the time-scale of the research project. Therefore, success cannot be measurable at
this stage.
 Research interviews with a planner and architect could not be obtained. This was a
limitation where the Floating Home architect is widely recognised in the ‘Aquatecture’
field.
 Evaluating paradigms between the primary and secondary research lead to the
exclusion of significant ideas and notions; this was inevitable through the refinement
and selection of data.
 Whilst this study was conducted in the context of London, the results may not be
generalisable to other counties; where they are not as densely-populated or hold intricate
planning systems as with London.
 A limitation lies where no literature surrounds floatation technology as a social
housing development, therefore fewer paradigms could be established between the
primary and secondary data.
 Themes that were most significant in the primary data were proportional to the
allocated number of concepts. Nonetheless, concepts were still based upon
acknowledgment from participants in the interviews and this limitation was
unavoidable.
6.2 Practical Implications for Stakeholders

Stakeholders involved in the research project may benefit or lose out through possible
implementation of the Floating Home. Opportunities are possible for the likes of developers,
who can benefit from recognising a development vision for the Floating Home as a niche and
pioneering market in the UK. First time buyers, as the potential target audience, may also
benefit from a contemporary and innovative way of living, as well as an investment
opportunity (suggested by Person B and C in the interviews). Innovators, including the senior
director of Floating Homes Ltd., would be granted recognition for an avant-garde flood-
resistant measure, in light of flood risk surrounding the UK. Those residing in social housing,
however, may not benefit from the Floating Home, which has been suggested as unsuitable to
this cause.
6.3 Recommendations for Future Research

Several factors remain to be resolved and explored, these include;
 This research project has brought to light the limiting and obstructing nature of
existing planning processes, particularly where social housing is concerned. It is
suggested that a simplified framework must be implemented to meet the increasing
demand of social housing. Reasons behind the continual development of social housing
in high flood risk areas, even where flood risk assessments are in place, should also be
evaluated.
 In this way, urbanisation may argue a compelling case for implementing the Floating
Home, as discussed in chapter 5; it is advised to explore urbanisation for further
research.
 Further research is recommended with the inclusion of stakeholders such as;
representatives of the Government, CaRT, the GLA, a planner and architect; where
these could not be interviewed in this project. Evaluation of jurisdiction of each
institution is also recommended.
 The EA and DEFRA, whilst responsible for city-wide flood protection and may
promote flood resilience, are advised to encourage and incentivise homeowners to
implement flood resilience at a property level. In turn, a potential campaign could draw
attention to the Floating Home, as a holistic flood-resistant option for homeowners.
 Should an initial Floating Home prototype gain momentum, further research into
floating developments as a long-term objective should be explored.

Floating

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Floating

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Abstract

1.2 Scope of the Project…………………………………………………

1.3 Aim and Objectives………………………………………………….

2.1.2 Existing Flood Resilience……………………………………………

2.1.2.1 Resilient versus Resistant Design………………………………….

2.1.2.2 Responsibility for Flood Mitigation………………………………….

2.1.2.3 Urban Protection and Property-Level Protection (PLP)……………………

2.1.3 Scope for Innovation………………………………………………

2.2.2 Urbanisation and Affordability………………………………………..

2.3.1 Governmental and Non-Governmental Institutions………………………….

2.5 Floatation and Flood-Resilient Structures………………………………….

2.5.1 Floatation and Flood-Resilient Types…………………………………..

2.5.2 History of Floatation Structures……………………………………….

2.5.3 Design and Construction of the Floating Home…………………………….

2.5.3.1 Floating Home Materials…………………………………………

2.5.3.2 Floating Home Construction………………………………………

2.5.3.3 Floating Home Services: Centralised or Decentralised……………………

2.6.1 Single Floating Dwelling: Chichester Prototype, Sussex, UK…………………..

2.6.2 Affordable Student Housing: Copenhagen, Denmark………………………..

2.6.3 Floating Community: IJburg Floating Houses, IJmeer, Amsterdam………………

3.4.1 Primary Case Study……………………………………………….

3.6 Research Ethics and Validity…………………………………………..

4.3.1 Data Significance and Threshold………………………………………

4.4 Results of Data Analysis………………………………………………

4.4.1 Floating Home Suitability and Viability…………………………………..

4.4.1.1 Prototype and Showcase the Floating Home…………………………..

4.4.1.2 Floating Home Target Market……………………………………..

4.5.1.1 Global Warming and Natural Disasters………………………………

4.5.1.3 Scope for New Technology………………………………………

4.5.2 Floating Home Design and Construction…………………………………

4.5.2.1 Floating Home Construction………………………………………

4.5.2.2 Floating Home Materials / Durability………………………………..

4.5.2.3 Floating Home Comparison to Boats and Houses……………………….

4.5.3.1 Support from the Canal and River Trust (CaRT)………………………..

4.5.3.2 Support from the Council………………………………………..

4.5.3.3 Support from the Government…………………………………….

4.5.5.1 Demand for Social Housing………………………………………

4.5.6.1 Gentrification within London………………………………………

4.5.6.2 Running out of Land……………………………………………

5.1 Suitability and Viability of the Floating Home………………………………..

5.3 Floating Home Design and Construction…………………………………..

6.1 Limitations of the Research……………………………………………

6.2 Practical Implications for Stakeholders…………………………………….

6.3 Recommendations for Future Research……………………………………

London is situated within a major England floodplain and is subsequently vulnerable to

1.2 Scope of the Project

1.3 Aim and Objectives

The objectives of this project are:

2.1.2 Existing Flood Resilience

2.1.2.1 Resilient versus Resistant Design

2.1.2.2 Responsibility for Flood Mitigation

2.1.2.3 Urban Protection and Property-Level Protection (PLP)

2.1.3 Scope for Innovation

2.2.2 Urbanisation and Affordability

2.3.1 Governmental and Non-Governmental Institutions

 The Greater London Authority (GLA), relevant to city-wide planning matters such as

Figure 2-5: Typical planning process for constructing properties on-land

2.5 Floatation and Flood-Resilient Structures

2.5.1 Floatation and Flood-Resilient Types

2.5.2 History of Floatation Structures

2.5.3 Design and Construction of the Floating Home

2.5.3.1 Floating Home Materials

2.5.3.2 Floating Home Construction