This publication, Holistic evaluation of housing projects and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Some lessons from the field, is part of the “Evaluation Perspectives” series produced by the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB) Office of Evaluation. It is written by Kathleen Scanlon (Distinguished Policy Fellow, London School of Economics and Political Science) and Luigi Cuna (Senior Evaluator, CEB Office of Evaluation). The paper shares evidence-based learning from CEB evaluation work on housing operations linked to the UN 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Housing as a European sustainable development challenge
The paper frames access to housing as a critical societal issue across many CEB member countries, driven by urban population growth, rising housing prices, and urban transformation that can deepen social inequalities. It links housing directly to SDG 11 (“Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”) and its target to ensure access for all to “adequate, safe and affordable housing.” It also notes that housing investments influence multiple SDG-related domains beyond SDG 11, including poverty, health, education, and employment (e.g., SDG 1, SDG 3, SDG 4).
Why housing evaluation must be “holistic”
CEB evaluations have found that judging housing projects only by outputs such as the number of dwellings built, construction quality, or cost-effectiveness can miss the most important outcomes. Housing interventions operate within complex urban and housing systems where intended effects are often accompanied by unintended positive or negative consequences. The paper draws on systems thinking and complexity concepts (nonlinear dynamics, feedbacks, interconnectivity, and unpredictability) to argue that both small and large investments can produce unexpected results, and that factors outside the “housing sector” can shape outcomes over time.
A three-level framework for assessing outcomes
The paper proposes a three-level approach for ex-post evaluation that can also inform project design. First-level assessment focuses on the physical fabric and technical performance of dwellings (structural defects, standards compliance, environmental norms such as energy efficiency and insulation, and value-for-money). Second-level assessment looks at direct and indirect effects on beneficiaries, intended and unintended, including health, household finances (rent, mortgages, utilities and other recurrent costs), employment access and prospects (including the role of location and transport connectivity), education (including study space and access to services), and social/family networks. Third-level assessment addresses broader neighbourhood, institutional, governance, economic, urban and environmental effects, which may emerge only in the medium or long term and can include changes in segregation or social cohesion, pressures on infrastructure and services, effects on energy and water use, and the strengthening (or weakening) of housing-related institutions and management capacity.
Evidence from CEB evaluations and recurring risks
The framework is illustrated with examples from evaluations of CEB-financed projects targeting vulnerable groups, including Roma communities, migrants, and displaced or returning populations (drawing on projects evaluated between 2011 and 2019). The paper highlights recurring implementation and sustainability risks: lack of robust baseline and follow-up data (e.g., health outcomes); affordability stress when beneficiary incomes fall or when utility costs are high; and the decisive role of location in access to jobs. In one return programme example, only 33.2% of homes were occupied by registered returnees, and in another case the share of returnees living in financed dwellings was around 30%, indicating that housing supply alone may not achieve objectives if local economic conditions and services do not support stable settlement.
Defining sustainability for housing operations
For housing interventions aimed at groups at risk of social exclusion, the CEB Office of Evaluation defines sustainability as “continued and voluntary habitation by the beneficiary population in the housing provided by the project, under safe, affordable and adequate conditions.” The paper unpacks these elements: continued use (avoiding abandonment and vacancy), voluntary residence, continuity of the target population benefiting over time, safety that depends on long-term management and maintenance, affordability that accounts for full housing-related costs, and adequacy including privacy, space, security, ventilation, lighting, infrastructure, and location relative to work and services. It also underlines trade-offs (e.g., low rents may increase arrears and undermine maintenance capacity; cheaper land may push housing to poorly connected locations).
Implications for planning and evaluation practice
The paper concludes that recognising complexity early is essential: project designers should articulate expected benefits across domains, identify likely trade-offs, consult stakeholders, and collect baseline data for the outcomes that justify the intervention. Properly resourced evaluations can then explain not only whether housing was delivered, but how and why housing investments shape health, livelihoods, inclusion, and environmental and institutional sustainability over time.