An overview of post-disasterpermanenthousing reconstruction

in developing countriesIftekhar Ahmed

Climate Change Adaptation Programme (CCAP),Global Cities Research Institute, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Abstract

Purpose – A set of guidelines widely agreed by the international humanitarian aid community, suchas the Sphere Handbook, is currently lacking for permanent housing reconstruction in developingcountries. The paper aims to address this gap by reviewing the field and presenting a set of selectedexamples that offer lessons for informing, developing and promoting wider good practice.

Design/methodology/approach – An extensive literature review on post-disaster housingreconstruction in developing countries pointed to the significant impacts of disasters on housing indeveloping countries and the great challenges involved in the reconstruction process; it also allowedidentifying efforts at framing good practice guidelines by humanitarian and other agencies.

Findings – The paper finds that, while the review largely indicated the major challenges andshortcomings in the field, it also allowed identifying some examples of good practice and the reasonsfor their effectiveness.

Originality/value – As argued here, there are a number of independent guidelines for post-disasterreconstruction in developing countries, but hardly any which are widely endorsed and can be followedby humanitarian agencies. The paper therefore draws together the key issues and examples of goodpractice as a basis for informing the development of guidelines.

Keywords Housing, Disasters, Developing countries

Paper type Research paper

1. Conceptual framework: a three-tiered structureAs highlighted in this paper, housing reconstruction is a key element of post-disasterrecovery initiatives in developing countries, and thus the need arises to understandwhat makes it effective and what does not. Evaluations of individual programmes doprovide some insights, but to understand effectiveness at a broader level and its widerimplications, the need for an overview or synthesis is addressed here through adesktop study. This is done by building on existing literature and taking themforward. An integrative conceptual framework of a three-tiered process is followedwhere a broad-based literature review is synthesised with good practice guidelines andcase studies as outlined below:

(1) An extensive review was conducted of studies and reports on post-disasterhousing reconstruction. Two main findings from this literature review areunderscored firstly:. disasters impact significantly in developing countries, particularly on the

housing sector, the reason for the focus of this paper; and. great challenges arise in implementing post-disaster housing reconstruction

programmes in such countries, within which effectiveness, or the lackthereof, can be understood.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1759-5908.htm

IJDRBE2,2

148

International Journal of DisasterResilience in the Built EnvironmentVol. 2 No. 2, 2011pp. 148-164q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1759-5908DOI 10.1108/17595901111149141

(2) The literature review also yielded a number of approaches to framing goodpractice guidelines, produced by humanitarian and other agencies, indicatingwhat is perceived by such agencies as effective. Analysing the assumptionsbuilt into these guidelines vis-a-vis the literature in the field allowed furtherclarity on effectiveness.

(3) In a field fraught with challenges typically posed in a post-disaster context asmentioned above, various shortcomings are widely evident. It was thereforeconsidered all the more important to seek within the literature the limitednumber of cases that reportedly worked well and to identify their strengths andreasons for effectiveness, so that they serve as good practice examples andinform understanding of effectiveness.

A conclusion ties together the key findings of the overview and suggests that the paperhas lessons for future practice in the field of post-disaster housing reconstruction indeveloping countries. Because of the practical nature of the field, this paper offersutilitarian value in a global context of increasing frequency and magnitude ofdisasters, often associated with climate change. The conceptual framework is showndiagrammatically in Figure 1.

2. Disasters and housing2.1 Impacts in developing countriesDeveloping countries tend to bear the brunt of the impact of disasters, with the poor inthese countries often being the most severely affected (Schilderman, 2004). Asindicated in Table I, countries that experienced the greatest numbers of deaths andpeople affected by the top ten disasters were mostly developing countries. Asia, thecontinent with the highest population and where the majority are developing countries,by far experienced the highest number of disasters and the greatest proportion ofpeople killed by disasters during the 32-year period of 1975-2008 (ADRC, 2006)(Figure 2).

Housing is usually the most valuable asset for people in developing countries. Indisasters, particularly rapid-onset events, housing is usually the element that is mostextensively damaged or lost, and often represents the greatest share of loss in the totalimpact of a disaster on the national economy (Lyons, 2009). For example, as shown inFigure 3, in the 2004 tsunami and earthquake in Indonesia, housing was the sector thatexperienced maximum damage as assessed by a United Nations EconomicCommission for Latin America and the Caribbean study (Marti, 2005). The same

Figure 1.Conceptual framework

Effectivenessof housing

reconstruction

Broad review of literature:studies, reports, etc

Review of good practiceguidelines

Identification of goodpractice and reasons for

effectiveness

Utilitarian value forfuture practice

Housingreconstruction

149

Natural disasters by number of deaths – 2010Earthquake, January Haiti 222,570Heat wave, June-August Russia 55,736Earthquake, April China 2,968Flood, July-August Pakistan 1,985Landslides, August China 1,765Flood, May-August China 1,691Earthquake, February Chile 562Cold wave, July-December Peru 409Landslides, February-March Uganda 388Number of reported natural disasters bycountry – 2010

Total killed and affected people bynatural disasters per 100,000inhabitants – 2010

China 22 Haiti 40,098India 16 Chile 15,747Philippines 14 Somalia 15,506USA 12 Thailand 14,855Indonesia 11 Zimbabwe 13,422Australia 8 Cook Island 11,010Mexico 8 China 10,902Russia 8 Pakistan 10,691Pakistan 7 Mauritania 9,383Vietnam 7 Benin 9,301

Source: CRED-EMDAT (2011)

Table I.Impact of top tendisasters in 2010

Figure 2.Proportion of disasters(above) and number ofpeople killed by continent2000-2009

Africa25%

Americas19%

Asia40%

Europe14%

Oceania2%

Africa4%

Americas3%

Asia85%

Source: IFRC (2010)

Europe8%

Oceania<1%

IJDRBE2,2

150

study also assessed the impact of hurricanes in several Caribbean countries and foundthat the housing sector was the most badly damaged (Marti, 2005).

Particularly in developing countries, the impact of disasters on the built environmentis much higher than in developed countries, estimated at more than 20 times inmagnitude (Barakat, 2003). Hence in many post-disaster recovery programmes,maximum resources and priority is allocated to housing and infrastructurereconstruction compared to other sectors (Lang, 2008). As often evident in post-disaster situations, for example in the case of Honduras after Hurricane Mitch in 1998, asignificant number of affected people tend to prioritise housing as their most urgent need(Delaney and Shrader, 2000). It must however be acknowledged that income generationor livelihood is usually the highest priority for people in developing countries (Skinner,1990), but often that is linked to housing, the house being also a workplace in many suchcountries; thus housing reconstruction allows resuming high priority and oftenhome-based subsistence livelihood activities.

2.2 Challenges in housing reconstructionDuring post-disaster reconstruction a complex range of challenges arise (Delaney andShrader, 2000), among them, acutely, the pressure to build houses within theconstraints of a disrupted context as quickly as possible so that displaced disastervictims have homes again. Large-scale permanent housing reconstruction is usually aprotracted process (Cosgrave, 2008) even in developed countries (Oxfam, 2005) and indeveloping countries, due to existing institutional and economic shortfalls, attemptingrapid reconstruction ushers in a whole set of problems related to institutionalarrangements, buildings materials procurement, builder and labour availability, aswell as opportunistically escalated levels of endemic constraints such as corruptionand nepotism. In such a context, despite well-meaning intentions of implementingagencies, reconstruction projects often run up against hurdles. The literature is repletewith such examples, summarised below.

Figure 3.Impact of 2004 tsunami

and earthquake ondifferent sectors in

Indonesia

0

Housin

g

Trans

port

Indu

stry

Educa

tion

Energ

y

Agricu

lture

Fish

ery

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Damage ves

Source: Marti (2005)

Housingreconstruction

151

Typical implementation process. A typical process after disasters adopted bygovernments and humanitarian aid agencies is to provide temporary or transitionalshelter at the emergency response and relief stages followed by building permanenthousing in subsequent stages of rehabilitation and reconstruction. In some cases,disaster victims are relocated through resettlement programmes with a view towardsreducing future disaster risk, as done in several countries affected by the 2004 IndianOcean Tsunami, such as in Sri Lanka and India. Housing reconstruction involves notonly rebuilding houses, but also rehabilitation or reconstruction of infrastructure as anintrinsic element linked to housing. Typically, housing reconstruction is funded bydonor agencies including bilateral development aid agencies and banks, UN agencies,international non-governmental organisations (NGOs), philanthropic organisationsand private companies. Donor-driven permanent housing is built typically bycontractors, though increasingly, albeit a limited amount, are built by owners withfunding from donor agencies.

An extensively observed inadequacy of reconstructed housing in many developingcountries in a variety of contexts is its cultural inappropriateness resulting from thelack of understanding of local needs by implementing agencies. The inappropriatenessis evident in size and style of houses, design of spaces within and around the house,choice of building materials and infrastructural services. Additionally an approachcommon in reconstruction projects in many developing countries throughout the pastis the typical regimental barrack-type layout of resettlement areas, observed by severalauthors (Kronenberger, 1984; Razani, 1984), highlighted by Oliver-Smith (2007) inresettlement projects in Turkey:

[. . .] ease of construction and the imposition of urban middle class values on rural populationsseem to lie at the root of problems of monotonous, uniform designs for resettled populations.Such resettled village layouts lack the variety as well as culturally constructed ritual spacesrequired by people in their environments.

The cultural inappropriateness issue has persisted over a long time, indicated by earlyobservations (Chisholm, 1979; Davis, 1978; Skinner, 1990) to more recent ones(Barenstein, 2008; Boen and Jigyasu, 2005; Delaney and Shrader, 2000; Ganapati andGanapati, 2009; Gharaati and Davidson, 2008; Russell et al., 2008), and housingreconstruction continues to fail in this respect widely. Beneficiaries react by refusing toinhabit the housing or attempt to adapt in various ways, from modifying the house todismantling it and selling its components (Barakat, 2003; Chisholm, 1979). Althoughthe importance of beneficiary consultation and participation is widely recognised byagencies, it is often done inadequately, if at all, also documented widely (Ganapati andGanapati, 2009; Lawther, 2009; Seraj and Ahmed, 2004), a prime cause behind thecultural misfit of reconstructed housing. Termed by Delaney and Shrader (2000) as the“tyranny of the urgent”, in the usual post-disaster rush for rapid reconstructionbeneficiary participation is precluded or considered unnecessarily time-consuming,consequently resulting in production of housing that fails to match the needs, cultureand aspirations of beneficiaries.

A range of other shortcomings characterise the production of reconstructionhousing: lack of institutional coordination, lack of planning and clear policy,creation of vulnerability, inequitable distribution, human rights abuse, corruption,inordinate construction delays and financial mismanagement and misappropriation

IJDRBE2,2

152

(AFP, 2009; Boen, 2006; Eye on Aceh, 2006; INFORM, 2005; Forbes, 2006a, b; Perlez,2006; Steinberg, 2007; Tsunami Evaluation Coalition, 2006).

3. Guidelines for good practiceGiven the importance and increasingly widespread necessity of post-disasterhousing reconstruction and evidence of, also widespread, shortcomings as discussedin the preceding section it has become necessary to develop guidelines for globalgood practice. In the disasters field, perhaps the most well-known guidelines for goodpractice are set out in the Sphere Handbook (Sphere Project, 2004). However, thishandbook is concerned mainly with guidelines for post-disaster response and in thefield of the built environment includes emergency shelter and camp managementissues, but does not deal with reconstruction of permanent housing. Indeed there isvery little literature on global guidelines for best practice that can be followed by therange of international humanitarian and other agencies active in this field.

There are many country-specific guidelines, for example, Ahmed (2005) (Bangladesh)or National Housing Development Authority (NHDA) (2005) (Sri Lanka), and alsohazard-specific ones such as Building Research Establishment (BRE) (1998) (cyclone),Clini (2006) (tsunami) or Cosgrave (2008) (earthquake), or even both country/region andhazard specific such as Arya (2000) (cyclones in Orissa, India) or Building and SocialHousing Foundation (BSHF) (1993) (typhoons in the Philippines). Rawal et al. (2006)have attempted to compile a guidebook on disaster-safe construction, but the focus ismostly on earthquakes, possibly due the occurrence of several recent devastatingearthquakes in India where the book was produced, and on hazard-resistantconstruction per se, not particularly in the context of post-disaster reconstruction withits specific challenges. Although some elements from such guidelines can be adapted forwider application, a set of guidelines widely agreed by the international humanitarianaid community, such as the Sphere Handbook, is currently lacking for housingreconstruction in developing countries.

3.1 Disaster risk reduction and response guidelines for built environment professionalsAlthough somewhat general and certainly not as comprehensive as the SphereHandbook, Lloyd-Jones et al. (2009) have produced a guidebook for built environmentprofessionals. Being general in scope, this publication deals broadly with disaster riskreduction and response, within which it mentions the typical built environmentprofessionals involved in reconstruction and attempts to delineate their roles in termsof a typical set of activities, as shown in Table II.

Being limited in its role, this guidebook appears to suggest that the role of theseprofessionals end after project implementation and whether they need to play activeroles over a much longer term of repair, maintenance, warranty, extension andremodelling has not been clarified. Although attempts to establish connections tooverall disaster risk reduction have been made, how reconstruction is linked to otheraspects of post-disaster recovery, such as livelihood, institution and capacity buildingand environmental sustainability is not evident. Reconstruction in that sense is viewedas a one-off affair, not a long-term process integrated into an overall framework ofcommunity development and resilience building. The choice of built environmentprofessionals appears to be derived very much from a formal sector approach typical ofdeveloped countries – in most developing countries where the bulk of construction

Housingreconstruction

153

activity occurs at the informal sector, it is necessary to recognise the type of informalprofessionals (local masons, carpenters, etc.) that guide this form of activity, althoughwith many weaknesses according to professional standards. It is not a matter of onlyproviding training in a top-down sense to such informal professionals; formal sectorprofessional have much to gain from their on-the-ground locally embedded experience.Therefore, for any such guidebook to be relevant to the developing world context, therole of professionals should be posited as a two-way process of synthesis of formal andinformal knowledge.

3.2 The World Bank’s guidelines for reconstructionA more detailed approach to address the lack of global guidelines for reconstructionhas been undertaken by the World Bank by embarking on production of a Handbookon Housing and Community Reconstruction ( Jha, 2009). Presently in draft form, the12 guiding principles proposed in the handbook are shown in Table III.

These guidelines of the World Bank are wide-ranging and appear to be derived fromrecent experiences of post-disaster reconstruction, particularly after the 2004 tsunami.The environmental sustainability aspect, a crucial contemporary concern, hithertoneglected generally in reconstruction programmes has encouragingly found a place inthis handbook. It is not clear whether the guidelines are targeted specifically for

ReconstructionBuilt environment professionals Activities

Architects Housing/building designSurveyors Housing/building construction advice/supervisionPlanners Infrastructure planning and implementationEngineers Training

Project planning and managementFinancial planning and management

Source: Summarised from Lloyd-Jones et al. (2009)

Table II.Typical activities of builtenvironmentprofessionals inreconstruction

Housing and community reconstruction handbook: guiding principles

1 Do not just reconstruct houses, reactivate communities2 Put owners in charge of reconstruction and address needs of tenants and squatters3 Provide an effective organisational structure4 Use reconstruction to rethink the future and conserve the past5 Collaborate with communities rather than just inviting their participation6 Promote civil society engagement consistent with reconstruction policy7 Use assessment and monitoring to improve reconstruction outcomes8 Use reconstruction to mobilize disaster risk management policy reform9 Manage financial resources and stabilise family finances

10 Avoid relocation or mitigate all its impacts11 Avoid sacrificing hard-won policies to facilitate reconstruction12 Establish environmental sustainability as a reconstruction objective

Source: Jha (2009)

Table III.The World Bankhandbook’s 12 guidingprinciples onreconstruction

IJDRBE2,2

154

developing countries, but they seem sufficiently broad to be applied in a wide range ofcontexts. However, given the strategic and policy orientation of the guidelines,there remains a need to address a key strategic aspect in post-disaster housingreconstruction – mechanism for ensuring good quality of construction – together withliability, warranty and accountability for faulty construction and defects, usually linkedto the modality of contractual arrangement – donor-driven, owner-driven or any modein between these two. The participatory approach is implicitly cross-cutting across theguidelines, but as this is a rhetoric widely employed but seldom followed appropriately,it leads one to wonder how the quality of participation would be ensured.

The World Bank’s track record in the participatory field does not indicatesatisfactory results, for example in housing reconstruction projects implemented afterthe 1999 earthquake in Turkey (Ganapati and Ganapati, 2009) and the 1993 earthquakein Maharastra, India (Schilderman, 2004), so how better results will be achieved in thefuture through such generic guidelines remains open to speculation. A more obviouscritique, often made by implementing agencies, is the need for time and resources forfollowing such a participatory and multi-stakeholder inclusive approach, particularlyin a disrupted post-disaster context in resource-poor developing countries. Indeed, thiswas the reasoning behind the Turkey and India projects that were “top down, did notallow for user participation” (Schilderman, 2004) or the concept of participation appliedonly in a limited sense (Ganapati and Ganapati, 2009). In more recent owner-drivenreconstruction projects supported by the World Bank after the 2004 tsunami in Acehand Nias – almost tipping the boat – community participation was “instrumentalizedas if it were a panacea for all the shortcomings of actions by government or contractors”(Steinberg, 2007). While communities there were overwhelmed by the tragic impact ofsuch a massive disaster, intensive community participation was expected as in anon-emergency situation, leading to communities being overloaded and consequentlyyielding poor results.

Nonetheless, it appears that the World Bank’s handbook, still in draft form, is beingreviewed and will hopefully invite inputs from a wide range of experts andstakeholders at subsequent stages before it is published. It should be recognised as anattempt to formulate guidelines for global good practice in housing reconstruction,where such guidelines are yet lacking.

3.3 Technical guidelines for housing reconstructionThe above guidebooks focus primarily on institutional and professional aspects of thereconstruction process, but to be comprehensive they need to include technical aspectsof house construction. A more comprehensive set of guidelines, linking thereconstruction process with technical standards and methods, has been produced byPractical Action (2006) as summarised in Table IV. Although this has been produced inSri Lanka after the 2004 tsunami, indicated by its focus on coastal areas, it has beenprepared in general terms relevant to a wide range of developing contexts. It attemptsto link the reconstruction process to a number of sectors, perhaps more relevant to theSri Lankan context, but nevertheless underscoring an approach that is comprehensiveand recognises the multi-sectoral relationships in housing reconstruction. However, thetechnical guidelines for construction pertain mainly to general good practice and do notattempt to link them to safer hazard-resistant construction. Guidelines for some of theexamples of innovative technologies, such as the rat-trap masonry bond and filler roof

Housingreconstruction

155

slab, are based on Practical Action’s post-tsunami housing reconstruction projects inSri Lanka. These technologies have been developed and applied elsewhere (such as inIndia) and it is not known how they perform in the context of Sri Lanka. Whetherbeneficiaries living in houses where these technologies have been used are satisfied orexperiencing problems needs to be explored, and whether the beneficiaries chose themor were unilaterally promoted by Practical Action remains a matter of investigation.

There are many technical guidebooks on building construction in developingcountries, much too exhaustive to list here; for example, the BASIN network comprisedof a number of agencies from different countries that specialise in this field hasproduced many such guidebooks (see web site: www.basin.info). There are few thoughthat deal specially with housing and building in post-disaster contexts. The publicationby Coburn et al. (1995), although somewhat dated, stands out as an example in thisfield. It is however more of a handbook on building safer buildings in hazard-proneareas, not so much as a guidebook on housing reconstruction, though some of itselements could be utilised to build back better during reconstruction in areas that aresubject to future risk. A more relevant technical guidebook perhaps would requiresetting out general principles of good construction for typical building methods andpractices in developing countries, together with a supplement on safer constructiontechniques against some of the main hazard types, so that the guidebook user wouldhave a choice of options to adapt according to context and circumstances. For acomprehensive guidebook, it would be necessary to link such technical guidelines toinstitutional and professional aspects and identifying linkages with other key sectors.The Practical Action guidebook discussed above, despite its limitations, perhapsprovides a template for production of such a guidebook.

4. Examples of good practiceGuidelines for good practice should be derived from real-life examples of good practice.Given the overall state of shortcomings outlined earlier, successful cases of housingreconstruction representing good practice might be isolated examples. However, evenif only some elements of these cases indicate success or positive aspects, they need tobe drawn out so that lessons can be gained for informing, developing and promotingwider good practice. Therefore, it has been chosen here to discuss key aspects of goodpractice, illustrated by examples of projects or programmes that have been consideredsuccessful. This is not a definitive list of such examples; some key ones have beenselected here to illustrate broadly the nature of successful approaches.

Rebuildinghomes andlivelihoods

Livelihooddevelopment in post-disaster situations

Strengtheningsmall-scalecoastal fisheries

Appropriatetransportinfrastructure andmodels for ruralcommunities in post-disaster situations

Wastemanagement inpost-disasterrebuilding

Process guidelinesTechnical briefs

Source: Practical Action (2006)

Table IV.Menu for “rebuildinghome and livelihoods”

IJDRBE2,2

156

Agencies that establish a longstanding relationship in an area, region or country byrepeated demonstration of good practice have a higher chance of success, particularlyif the relationship strongly involves local institutions and communities. An example ofthis is illustrated by the work of Development Workshop France (DWF) in HueProvince, Vietnam since 1989 (see below):

Longstanding practice of DWF in Vietnam. Working with provincial and communelevel authorities, a local construction company and communities, DWF has pioneeredthe development of wind-resistant housing in coastal areas facing cyclone risk in centralVietnam. Recent work after the 2006 Typhoon Xangsane supported by the EuropeanCommission Humanitarian Aid Office resulted in rehabilitation and reconstruction of268 houses to wind-resistant standard, coupled with an ongoing “safer house” campaignthroughout the province and surrounding affected areas including training for morethan 100 local builders. DWF’s work highlights the significant impact anddemonstration effect for local replication that can be achieved through such projectsthat combine practical training and technical inputs. The success of the work is also dueto its integration with livelihood support (tools, fishing nets, equipment, etc.) incoordination with local authorities. DWF was awarded the 2008 World Habitat Award(see Brouant, 2006; International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), 2007; DWFhomepage: www.web.net/,devworks/; www.en.wikipedia.ora/wiki/DevelopmentWorkshop).

As the DWF example indicates, within the framework of local participation it is alsonecessary to develop local capacity so that the technical “know-how” remains in thearea and benefits the wider community beyond project beneficiaries and is replicatedbeyond project confines. The success is also linked to formulating easilycomprehensible key hazard-resistant construction principles, in this case DWF’s“10 basic principles of typhoon-resistant construction” (Table V) that enable buildinggeneral understanding, which can then act as a stepping stone to more detailedconstruction methods and techniques relating to these principles.

Reconstruction projects implemented in a participatory owner-driven mode need toensure that beneficiaries have adequate technical support from local community-basedbuilders and construction workers for good quality house construction, and inhazard-prone areas, to ensure that the houses would be able to withstand future hazardimpact. Such an example is in Gujarat state, India (see below):

Owner-driven earthquake resistant housing reconstruction in Gujarat, India. Gujaratstate in India experienced a number of earthquakes, most notably in 1993 and 2001.

1 Choose the location carefully to avoid the full force of the wind2 Build a house with a simple shape to avoid negative pressure3 Build the roof at an angle of 308-458 to prevent it from lifting off4 Avoid wide roof overhangs; separate the veranda structure from the house5 Make sure the foundations, walls, roof structure and roof covering are all firmly fixed together6 Reinforce the triangular bracing in the structure7 Make sure the roof covering is attached to the roof structure to prevent it from lifting8 Match opposing openings9 Use doors and windows that can be closed

10 Plant trees around the house as wind breaks

Source: DWF (2005)

Table V.DWF’s “10 basic

principles oftyphoon-resistant

construction”

Housingreconstruction

157

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) supported a local organisation,Abhiyan, to implement an owner-driven reconstruction programme, gainingexperience over an extended period and building upon that (UNDP, 2001). A keysuccess element of the programme was that relocation was avoided and houses wererebuilt in situ, benefiting from existing services and networks instead having tore-establish them in a new location. Although the new houses were based on local andtraditional designs, the programme introduced earthquake-resistant innovations toreduce future risk together with technical back-up through extensive training oflocal masons in the improved construction methods. After the 2001 earthquake,1,270 earthquake-resistant houses in 90 villages were built and more than 8,000masons were trained in the process. A study by the World Habitat Research Unitfound a very high level of satisfaction among the beneficiaries of this programme(Barenstein, 2006, 2008). However, it has been observed that not all houses built areseismically safe (Barakat, 2003), highlighting the challenges of achieving good qualityconstruction through owner-driven programmes.

The owner-driven model of housing reconstruction merits more examination,particularly on construction quality achievable by beneficiaries and local constructionworkers. Nonetheless, this model if implemented carefully has definite advantagesexemplified in the example from India (see “Owner-driven earthquake resistanthousing reconstruction in Gujarat, India” section) and also reportedly in UN-Habitat’spost-tsunami reconstruction projects in Sri Lanka and Indonesia (personalcommunications with UN-Habitat in Sri Lanka and Aceh, 2009; UN-Habitat, 2008;Radford, 2008). UN-Habitat beneficiaries are provided funds in instalments accordingto stages of construction where agency staff inspect and monitor the quality of work ateach stage before fund disbursal. Beneficiaries are also provided technical supportthrough house designs and construction specifications and assisted in fieldinterpretation. Conducted appropriately, the owner-driven model has potential ofharnessing and synthesising both professional/formal and local/informal skills,allowing complementary synergy.

Sometimes events outside the control of agencies can contribute to success. Somesuch events might be unpredictable, but a context with regular frequency of recurringhazard events provides opportunity for demonstrating good practice, resulting inspontaneous replication of improved new construction technologies beyond the projectconfines or timeframe. This is demonstrated by the work of the IntermediateTechnology Development Group (ITDG), now Practical Action, in reconstructionprojects after earthquakes during the early 1990s in Peru, where subsequentearthquakes established the sturdiness of houses built earlier (Lowe, 1997).

Demonstration effect for acceptance of earthquake resistant housing in Pent. TheITDG (now Practical Action) implemented a number of post-earthquake reconstructionprojects in Peru during the 1990s. Here the traditional wattle-and-daub “quincha”construction was improved by using stabilised cement instead of mud, and utilised tobuild 558 earthquake-resistant houses through a self-help process where communitymembers were trained and they then assisted each other to build the houses. When thefirst set of houses was built after the 1990 earthquake, communities were not entirelyconvinced of the merits of improved “quincha”; even though derived from local practiceearlier attempts had faced similar impediments (Skinner, 1990). However, a year laterwhen another earthquake hit and these houses withstood it, the value of this form of

IJDRBE2,2

158

construction was visibly demonstrated. Independent of the project, thousands ofimproved “quincha” houses were built subsequently by local communities. Evenrecently, other agencies in Peru including Cooperazione Internazionale, Movement forSocial Housing, Centro de Estudios y Prevencion de Desastre and local Red Crosschapters have been implementing post-earthquake reconstruction projects usingimproved “quincha” (Wilderspin et al., 2008).

A similar case is an UNDP-supported post-flood housing reconstruction projectduring 2004-2005 in Bangladesh. Here capping of traditional earthen plinths withcement-stabilised soil, a new technique, was introduced. Initially partner NGOs of theproject were averse to the idea, but after more than 16,000 houses were built in thismethod and demonstrated their durability in subsequent floods, agencies were found toendorse and apply this technique in their forthcoming programmes (UNDP, 2005;Shelter Coordination Group, 2008; personal communication with Islamic ReliefBangladesh, 2008).

Typically in most housing reconstruction projects, a “one-size-fits-all approach”(Russell et al., 2008) is followed where a standard-sized house is provided tobeneficiaries with widely varying numbers of household members and diversehome-based livelihoods. Where land is restricted, or in multi-storey buildings, thisapproach places beneficiaries in an inconvenient position, particularly largehouseholds or those requiring more space to generate livelihoods. On the otherhand, when possible and if resources permit, beneficiaries actively remodel, modify,extend and renovate the standard house to accommodate their needs (see for exampleAhmed and O’Brien, 2010). Understandably, in a post-disaster situation where a largevolume of houses have to be built as quickly as possible, it would present immensechallenges and would be highly demanding for agencies to build housing catering toindividual beneficiary needs. However, some agencies have begun to understand thepost-completion housing transformation process and incorporate provisions for futurechanges that can be made by beneficiaries. For example, in Southern India after the2004 tsunami, World Vision built extendable houses with an earthquake-resistantstructural core that allowed building another floor without compromising the strengthof the structure (Greenblott, 2007). A built-in partial extension on the second levelallowed beneficiaries to complete another living unit on that level for an extendedfamily. Column stubs extending into the upper level as well as a staircase for accessingthe second level made building and inhabiting an extra floor easy. All the beneficiariesmay not choose to extend their house, in which case, they can continue to live in theoriginal standard house. What this example underscores is the need for agencies torecognise the diverse spatial needs of beneficiaries and incorporate provisionsand options for adapting and transforming a standard or core house over time tosuch needs.

Large-scale reconstruction programmes often place great demand on naturalresources for building materials, and particularly in resettlement schemes, woodlandscleared for building settlements result in negative impact on the environment(Barenstein, 2008). In Indonesia after the 2004 tsunami, the problem of acquiringcertified timber due to available supplies being linked to illegal logging contributing todeforestation, led to widespread production of brick masonry houses, in a context withscarce supply of wood or petrol fuel for brick-burning, resulting in further deforestationand environmental impact (Ahmed and O’Brien, 2009; Mueller and Beck, 2008;

Housingreconstruction

159

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2005). As mentioned earlier in thepreceding section, very little study has been done on the environmental impactsof post-disaster resettlement and agencies by and large tend to pay little attention tothis issue. There are various ways of reducing environmental impact of reconstructionprogrammes, such as salvaging and using materials from buildings damaged by thedisaster (Mueller and Beck, 2008), or having a policy for waste management onreconstruction sites (Practical Action, 2006), or an environmentally sensitive approachto design of settlements, as illustrated by the example in Thailand, is shown below.

Environment-sensitive design of housing reconstruction in Thailand. One examplewhere an attempt has been made to rebuild a settlement on relocated land in a coastalmangrove area by disrupting the natural environment as little as possible is inKoh Mook, Thailand after the 2004 tsunami (Asian Coalition of Housing Rights(ACHR), 2006). This was the only land made available by the government for relocationaway from the tsunami-affected coast and the implementing agency had to work withinthis constraint so that at least the displaced community had a new home. Designed byCommunity Architects for Shelter and Environment in consultation with thebeneficiary community and implemented by the government’s CommunityOrganisations Development Institute, this settlement consists of 94 stilt houses madeof timber connected by a “floating” walkway. The houses are built on concrete columnsthat do not get damaged in the water and allow the tide to flow through the mangrovesand maintains the ecosystem. The location provides the fisherfolk beneficiaries accessto the sea, but is also protected from storms and tidal surges by the mangroves.Although this is a relatively small project, it can be highlighted as an example ofsensitivity to the natural environment.

5. ConclusionGlobal climate change is resulting in increasing frequency, magnitude and intensity ofdisasters, many of which severely impact upon the poorest and most vulnerablecommunities in developing countries. Other factors, such as rapid and unplannedurbanisation, deforestation, conflict and inequitable resource distribution, alsocontribute to increasing vulnerability and disaster risk. In the face of frequentdisasters, post-disaster housing reconstruction projects are being implemented widelyand are anticipated to increase in volume and scale in the future. It has therefore becomeessential now that reconstruction actors and stakeholders begin addressingshortcomings such as those identified above and achieve global good practicemodels and processes, particularly in developing countries where disaster impacts aremost widely and acutely experienced. While there is an array of examples of failure, it isnecessary to identify examples of success, however meagre, in order to gain lessons thatwould allow achieving more widespread good practice.

There are many factors – context, scale of programme, budget, political goodwill,cooperation of communities, etc. – that contribute to success in post-disasterreconstruction programmes and the criteria used for assessing success can be variablebecause as yet there is no globally accepted standard or guidelines in this field.Nonetheless, in all the examples cited in this paper, a key element permeatingthroughout, albeit in varying degrees, is the understanding of local conditions gainedfrom community-based consultative and participatory processes that allowed a degreeof success. It would be difficult to find examples where success has been achieved

IJDRBE2,2

160

without such consultation or participation. While there are number of lessons here, thekey one perhaps is the value of contextually appropriate community consultation andparticipation, widely recognised and often given lip service, but only occasionallypracticed adequately.

References

ADRC (2006), Natural Disasters Data Book – 2005, Asian Disaster Reduction Center, Kobe.

AFP (2009), “Sri Lanka tsunami aid ‘misappropriated’”, The Age, 27 December.

Ahmed, K.I. (2005), Handbook on Design and Construction of Housing for Flood-prone RuralAreas of Bangladesh, ADPC (Asian Disaster Preparedness Center), Bangkok.

Ahmed, K.I. and O’Brien, D.J. (2009), “Sustainable organic building materials for housing: the caseof post-disaster reconstruction in Indonesia”, Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Conferenceof the Australia and New Zealand Architectural Science Association (ANZAScA 2009),University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia.

Ahmed, K.I. and O’Brien, D.J. (2010), Transformation of Post-Disaster Housing: The Case ofAceh, Indonesia, Raphael Vinoly Architects, New York, NY, research report, in progress.

Arya, A.S. (2000), Guidelines for Reconstruction of Building in Cyclone Affected Areas in Orissa,HUDCO (Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd), New Delhi.

Asian Coalition of Housing Rights (ACHR) (2006), “A first in Thailand”, Tsunami Update, June.

Barakat, S. (2003), Housing Reconstruction After Conflict and Disaster, Humanitarian PracticeNetwork, London.

Barenstein, J.D. (2006), Housing Reconstruction in Post-Earthquake Gujarat: A ComparativeAnalysis, Humanitarian Practice Network, London.

Barenstein, J.D. (2008), “From Gujarat to Tamil Nadu: owner-driven vs contractor-driven housingreconstruction in India”, Proceedings of the 4th International i-Rec Conference, Universityof Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand (accessed August 2009).

Boen, T. (2006), “Building a safer Aceh, reconstruction of houses, one year after the Dec. 26, 2004tsunami”, paper presented at the 40th Anniversary of Trisakti University, Jakarta.

Boen, T. and Jigyasu, R. (2005), “Cultural considerations for post-disaster reconstruction”, paperpresented at UNDP Conference, available at: www.adpc.net (accessed September 2009).

BRE (1998), Cyclone-resistant Houses for Developing Countries, BRE, Watford.

Brouant, O. (2006), Rebuilding a Safer Future for Families Affected by Cyclone N6 Xansane inCentral Vietnam, ECHO (European Commission for Humanitarian Aid Office), Brussels,project appraisal worksheet.

BSHF (1993), A Practical Guide to the Construction of Low Cost Typhoon-resistant Housing,BSHF, Coalville.

Chisholm, M.P. (1979), “Bangladesh rural housing”, BArch thesis, University ofNewcastle-upon-Tyne, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Clini, C. (2006), Reduce Tsunami Risk: Strategies for Urban Planning and Guidelines forConstruction Design, ADPC (Asian Disaster Preparedness Center), Bangkok.

Coburn, A., Hughes, R., Pomonis, A. and Spence, R. (1995), Technical Principles of Building forSafety, Intermediate Technology, London.

Cosgrave, J. (2008), Responding to Earthquakes: Learning from Earthquake Relief and RecoveryOperations, ALNAP (Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance inHumanitarian Action), London.

Housingreconstruction

161

CRED-EMDAT (2011), The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, Universite Catholiquede Louvain, Belgium, Centre for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters EmergencyEvents Database.

Davis, I. (1978), Shelter After Disaster, Oxford Polytechnic Press, Oxford.

Delaney, P. and Shrader, E. (2000), Gender and Post-Disaster Reconstruction: The Case ofHurricane Mitch in Honduras and Nicaragua, The World Bank, Washington, DC, draftreport.

DWF (2005), Protect Your House Against Storms! DW Project “Protection Against Storms”,Development Workshop France, Hue, Poster.

Eye on Aceh (2006), A People’s Agenda? Post-Tsunami Aid in Aceh, Eye on Aceh, Indonesia andAid Watch, Sydney.

Forbes, M. (2006a), “Aid agencies ‘lied’ over tsunami aid”, The Age, 9 March.

Forbes, M. (2006b), “Downer defends Aceh aid agencies”, The Age, 10 March.

Ganapati, N.E. and Ganapati, S. (2009), “Enabling participatory planning after disasters: a casestudy of the World Bank’s housing reconstruction in Turkey”, Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 41-59.

Gharaati, M. and Davidson, C. (2008), “Who knows best? An overview of reconstruction after theearthquake in Bam, Iran”, Proceedings of the 4th International i-Rec Conference, Universityof Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand (accessed August 2009).

Greenblott, K. (2007), Shelter Programming: Learning from the Asia Tsunami Response, WorldVision, London.

IFRC (2010), World Disasters Report, International Federation of Red Cross and Red CrescentSocieties, Geneva.

INFORM (2005), Update: Human Rights Issues in the Post-Tsunami Conflict, INFORM HumanRights Documentation Centre, Colombo.

ISDR (2007), Building Disaster Resilient Communities: Good Practices and Lessons Learned,International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva.

Jha, K.A. (2009), Handbook on Housing and Community Reconstruction, The World Bank,Washington, DC, draft.

Kronenberger, J. (1984), “The German Red Cross in the earthquake zone of Turkey-regions ofVan and Erzurum”, in Schupisser, S. and Studer, J. (Eds), Earthquake Relief in LessIndustrialised Areas, AA Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 29-42.

Lang, H. (2008), “Community housing in post disaster area on Nias Islands, Indonesia:responding to community needs”, Proceedings of the 4th International i-Rec Conference,University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand (accessed August 2009).

Lawther, P.M. (2009), “Community involvement in post disaster re-construction – case study ofthe British Red Cross Maldives recovery program”, International Journal of StrategicProperty Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 153-69.

Lloyd-Jones, T., Kalra, R., Mulyawan, B., Theis, M., Wakely, P., Payne, G. and Hall, N. (2009),The Built Environment Professions in Disaster Risk Reduction and Response: A Guide forHumanitarian Agencies, MLC Press, London.

Lowe, L. (1997), Earthquake Resistant Housing in Peru, Intermediate Technology, London.

Lyons, M. (2009), “Building back better: the large-scale impact of small-scale approaches toreconstruction”, World Development, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 385-98.

Marti, R.Z. (2005), The 2004 Hurricanes in the Caribbean and the Tsunami in the Indian Ocean,United Nations, New York, NY.

IJDRBE2,2

162

Mueller, C. and Beck, D. (2008), German Red Cross: Indonesia Program Update, German RedCross, Jakarta, newsletter.

National Housing Development Authority (NHDA) (2005), Guidelines for Housing Developmentin Coastal Sri Lanka, Ministry of Housing and Construction, Colombo.

Oliver-Smith, A. (2007), “Successes and failures in post-disaster resettlement”, Disasters, Vol. 15No. 1, pp. 12-23.

Oxfam (2005), A Place to Stay, A Place to Live: Challenges in Providing Shelter in India, Indonesiaand Sri Lanka After the Tsunami, Oxfam, Oxford, briefing note.

Perlez, J. (2006), “Aid groups are criticized over tsunami reconstruction”, The New York Times,27 July.

Practical Action (2006), Infopacks: Rebuilding Homes & Livelihoods, Practical Action, Colombo.

Radford, C. (2008), “Introducing the UN-Habitat regional office for Asia and the Pacific region”,paper presented at Research Seminar Series, RMIT University, Melbourne.

Rawal, V., Prajapati, D. and Joshi, B. (2006), A People’s Guide to Building Damages and DisasterSafe Construction, UNNATI, Ahmedabad.

Razani, R. (1984), “Earthquake disaster reconstruction experience in Iran”, in Schupisser, S. andStuder, J. (Eds), Earthquake Relief in Less Industrialised Areas, AA Balkema, Rotterdam,pp. 79-86.

Russell, A., Potangaroa, R. and Feng, V. (2008), “Houses or homes? The patterns of design”,Proceedings of the 4th International i-Rec Conference, University of Canterbury,Christchurch, New Zealand (accessed August 2009).

Schilderman, T. (2004), “Adapting traditional shelter for disaster mitigation and reconstruction:experiences with community-based approaches”, Building Research & Information, Vol. 32No. 5, pp. 414-26.

Seraj, S.M. and Ahmed, K.I. (2004), Building Safer Houses in Rural Bangladesh, BangladeshUniversity of Engineering & Technology, Dhaka.

Shelter Coordination Group (2008), Build Back Better, IFRC (International Federation of RedCross and Red Crescent Societies), Dhaka (in Bengali).

Skinner, R. (1990), “Peru: low-income housing”, Mimar, No. 38, pp. 52-5.

Sphere Project (2004), The Sphere Handbook: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards inDisaster Response, Sphere Project Office, Geneva.

Steinberg, F. (2007), “Housing reconstruction and rehabilitation in Aceh and Nias, Indonesia –rebuilding lives”, Habitat International, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 150-66.

Tsunami Evaluation Coalition (2006), Joint Evaluation of the International Response to the IndianOcean Tsunami: Synthesis Report, Tsunami Evaluation Coalition, London.

UNDP (2001), From Relief to Recovery: The Gujarat Experience, United Nations DevelopmentProgramme, New York, NY.

UNDP (2005), Fix the Risk: UNDP 2004 Flood Recovery Programme, United NationsDevelopment Programme, New York, NY.

UNEP (2005), After the Tsunami: Rapid Environmental Assessment, United NationsEnvironment Programme, Nairobi.

UN-Habitat (2008), People’s Process in Post-disaster and Post-conflict Recovery andReconstruction, UN-Habitat, Fukuoka.

Wilderspin, I., Barham, J., Gill, G., Ahmed, I. and Lockwood, H. (2008), Evaluation of Disaster RiskReduction Mainstreaming in DG ECHO’s Humanitarian Actions, Aguaconsult, Wivenhoe.

Housingreconstruction

163

Further reading

Caritas (2007), Learning from Post-Tsunami Shelter Experiences, Caritas Sri Lanka, Colombo.

Dunn, S. (2006), “Rebuilding Hambantota after the tsunami”, Australian Planner, May.

Givoni, V. (1976), Man, Climate and Architecture, Applied Science, London.

Hettige, S.T. (2007), Tsunami Recovery in Sri Lanka: Retrospect and Prospect, SPARC andActionAid International, Colombo.

Hunnarshaala Foundation (2006), Mid-term Socio-technical Assessment of Shelter Reconstruction,Nations Development Programme, New Delhi.

Koenigsberger, O.H., Ingersoll, T.G., Mayhew, A. and Szokolay, S.V. (1973), Manual of TropicalHousing and Building, Longman, New York, NY.

Nakazato, H. and Murao, O. (2007), “Study on regional differences in permanent housingreconstruction process in Sri Lanka after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami”, Journal ofNatural Disaster Science, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 63-71.

O’Brien, D.J. and Ahmed, K.I. (2008), “Housing reconstruction in Aceh: relationships betweenhouse type and environmental sustainability’”, in Lizzarralde, G., Davidson, C., Pukteris, A.and De Bois, M. (Eds), Building Abroad: Procurement of Construction and ReconstructionProjects in the International Context, Universite de Montreal, Montreal, pp. 361-70.

Olgay, V. and Olgay, A. (1963), Design with Climate, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Roseberry, R. (2008), “A balancing act: an assessment of the environmental sustainability ofpermanent housing constructed by international community in post-disaster Aceh”,Proceedings of the 4th International i-Rec Conference, University of Canterbury,Christchurch, New Zealand (accessed August 2009).

Sirivardan, M. (1990), Guidelines on Community-based Housing Finance and Innovative CreditSystems for Low-income Households, UNESCAP, Bangkok.

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) (2008), Sri Lanka:Mixed Reactions as Tsunami Reconstruction Winds Down, IRIN (Integrated RegionalInformation Networks) Report, available at: www.reliefweb.int (accessed March 2008).

Corresponding authorIftekhar Ahmed can be contacted at: ifte.ahmed@rmit.edu.au

IJDRBE2,2

164

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints