Looking back at reconstruction and disaster risk reduction in housing

1. Looking back at reconstruction and disaster risk reduction in housing Geneva Shelter Meeting 13b October 29-30, 2013 Theo Schilderman Building and Social Housing Foundation (BSHF)

2. Rationale • Disasters and development are related • Inappropriate development creates the vulnerabilities that turn hazards into disasters • Disasters tend to affect the poor more • Disasters and reconstruction can increase or decrease vulnerabilities • What happens can only be truly understood in the long term • We do not look at the long-term impact of reconstruction enough

3. Rationale Number of longitudinal studies of impact by years after reconstruction (based on literature review)

4. Purpose of the research • Investigate long term impacts of reconstruction projects on housing and livelihoods • Derive key factors or issues to be considered in future project design and as indicators • Determine gaps in understanding that merit further research • First phase using qualitative methods; development of tools could follow on from this

5. Longitudinal Research • Shows the evolution of a project over time • Helps to discover impacts that were not yet visible at the end of projects Beware: • Opinions about a project can change over time (e.g. user satisfaction in Gujarat < J. Duyne) • Project context also changes, and with that the appropriateness of housing solutions (e.g. Alto Mayo < E. Guzman Negron)

6. Themes

7. User satisfaction: key questions • Whether people like or dislike their houses can be an important indicator of sustainability and replication of the types of housing built • Are users happy with their houses? • Advantages & disadvantages of living in the houses? • Did the project meet their needs and requirements?

8. User satisfaction: early findings • Is subjective and can change over time • Users may have limited knowledge of e.g. quality • More user participation tends to lead to greater satisfaction (in the form of more appropriate design, flexibility, affordability,..) • Relocation is generally disliked • Quality and Disaster Resistance are valued • Lack of housing-related services is negative • Lack of livelihood opportunities regretted too

9. Beneficiary targeting: key questions • Whether or not the right beneficiaries are reached is an important factor in the long-term impact of projects • Do projects reach the right people? • Are the solutions offered appropriate for them?

10. Beneficiary targeting: early findings • Beneficiaries are frequently not occupying allocated houses or moving out • This happens more in DDR than in ODR • Relocation is a key factor in this (e.g. because of loss of livelihoods or social networks) • A lack of essential services, such as water, is another major factor • Poor quality construction sometimes is too

11. Replication: key questions • Whether the housing solutions provided are being replicated by the beneficiaries or others is a good indicator of their appropriateness and sustainability • Have residents expanded their houses using techniques introduced by the project? • What limits the families to replicate this type of housing?

12. Replication: early findings • Is made easier by the choice of familiar technologies for reconstruction • A feeling of “ownership” that comes with greater participation encourages replication • Poverty can hamper replication – if the technologies selected are unaffordable without aid • A lack of skills (or of training provided by projects) does diminish replication too

13. Technical performance: key questions • It is only over the longer term that one can judge whether houses do stand up to further disasters, or the effects of climate, insects and other factors • Are they sufficiently durable? • Any maintenance issues?

14. Technical performance: early findings • Disaster resistance is not required in the codes of some countries • Where codes do exist, they may be ineffective • DDR does not guarantee better quality than ODR • Poor workmanship increases vulnerability • Radical changes in technology may lead to poor quality • People do not always know or take account of site risks • Insecure tenure discourages good construction

15. Impact on livelihoods: key questions • Did reconstruction generate additional and sustainable livelihoods? • Did projects stimulate non-reconstruction livelihoods? • Did people become more resilient / less vulnerable as a result of projects?

16. Impact on livelihoods: early findings • Reconstruction can stimulate the local economy, but technology choice is crucial • But this is not always sustained • Top-down approaches can create dependency • Reconstruction can also empower, this can be to the benefit or detriment of the marginalised, women,.. • Disadvantaged people do need to get a voice • There is only sporadic evidence of empowered communities continuing with other actions • Relocation can cause livelihood losses, and if people return, greater housing vulnerability

17. World Habitat Award winners and finalists as cases • La Paz Post-earthquake Recon- struction Programme, Fundasal, El Salvador, 2004 • Preventing Typhoon Damage to Housing, Development Workshop, Central Vietnam, 2008

18. Case Studies Reconstruction: • Post-earthquake reconstruction in Chincha, Peru, 2010 (Practical Action) • La Paz earthquake reconstruction programme, El Salvador, 2009 (FUNDASAL) • Post-tsunami reconstruction and rehabilitation, Sri Lanka, 2008 (Practical Action) • Integrated people-driven reconstruction, Indonesia, 2007 (UPLINK) • Gandhi Nu Gam, Gujarat, India, 2004 (Vastu-Shilpa Foundation) • Reconstruction after hurricane Mitch in Honduras, 2000 (Sofonias) • Reconstruction after hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua, 2000 (Sofonias) • Reconstruction in the coastal province of Vietnam, 2009 (Development Workshop) • In Situ Rehabilitation of Earthquake Victims in Latur District, India, 1997 (HUDCO) Disaster Risk Reduction: • Preventing typhoon damage to housing, Central Vietnam, 2008 (Development Workshop) • Building and Construction Improvement Programme, Pakistan, 2006 (Aga Khan Planning and Building Service) • Clay Houses that have resisted earthquakes, Salama, Baja Verapaz, Guatemala, 2002 (Sofonias)

19. Case studies

20. Methodology • Field study • Interviews • Men & women of different age groups • Local leaders, builders, other agencies • Focus groups • Female/male • Observation of changes • Writing and photos • Writing of case study

21. Next steps

22. How you can help • Come to... • Help review one of the cases in detail before publication

23. Thank you for your attention!Further informationjelly.moring@bshf.orgtheo.schilderman@bshf.orge.parker@coventry.ac.ukVisit www.bshf.orgRegister at:http://tinyurl.com/LBatRECONS