Facing the sinking cities in the midst of climate change

Jakarta, Hanoi, Kobe, and Houston are 4 out of the ten fastest-sinking cities in the world[1]. The problem is aggravated by climate change, which causes coastal cities to face massive flooding as sea levels rise. Certain districts of Jakarta, especially near Jakarta Bay, have sunk more than 4 meters since the 1970s, directly resulting from excessive and uncontrolled groundwater use[2]. Besides excessive groundwater extraction, rapid urbanization and population growth are major causes of severe land subsidence[3]. In urban areas, residential areas such as multi-story apartments, landed houses in real estate, and informal settlements are primary drivers for land subsidence due to the massive groundwater use. In some countries, government regulation in groundwater use is fully enforced, and the water piping systems are in place, so groundwater use is under control. But for informal settlements and slums, the condition is different. Over 1 billion people live in slums and informal settlements across the Global South without formal access to potable water, sewage, or electricity[4]. Therefore, it is urgent to support the people in that settlement so they can reduce groundwater use significantly.

Several housing programs have already been launched, such as repair, seismic retrofitting, and other home improvement programs. Due to this urgency, the program should be redesigned to incorporate access to potable water and reduce electricity use. The difference with the current home improvement program is that the new support should cover all inhabitants within the area. For instance, the seismic retrofitting and house improvement program is carried out only for the selected household that falls into the program category, such as those who fall into vulnerable criteria and live in a house that is vulnerable to hazards.

Challenges in the current program are on the demand side. For instance, even seismic retrofitting is crucial to have earthquake-resistant houses; only a few people are willing to retrofit them. They do not prioritize the initiative primarily because of the cost, and earthquake events do not happen regularly. People will raise their house level, even if expensive, since they realize that floods or rising water levels always occur. If it happens, it is already too late.

Hence, facing the sinking problem, adapting to climate change, and having resilient houses should be supported by various agencies since they will be integrated across sectors and carried out simultaneously. Housing actors can provide technical assistance in having robust houses that abide by the building code. Moreover, the provision of design that might reduce energy consumption and use low-power electronics should be introduced. Municipalities and water agencies provide water systems to cover the needs of all households in the area. Once all are in place, policy on the prevention of groundwater use should be enforced. Educating the community on how to use water wisely should be done continuously. However, the most important is improving their livelihood; all tend to fail if they live in poverty. Informal settlements in coastal towns should be prioritized to have this assistance very soon.

Arwin Soelaksono 

Photo: Artistpix/Shutterstock

---

[1] Squires. C, These are the 10 fastest sinking cities in the world. World Economic Forum. 2022. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/04/coastal-cities-flooding-sinking-climate-change/

[2] Walton, B. Indonesia: As seas rise, unchecked groundwater use sinks coastal cities. PreventionWeb. 2019. https://www.preventionweb.net/news/indonesia-seas-rise-unchecked-groundwater-use-sinks-coastal-cities  

[3] Erkens, G. et al. Sinking coastal cities. 2015. doi:10.5194/piahs-372-189-2015

[4] GSG. Informal Settlements: No Longer Invisible. The role of impact in scaling capital mobilization to fund slum-upgrading programs globally. 2022

Coordinated action for creating climate resilient housing

Achieving affordability of climate-resilient housing should be a top priority for governments and all stakeholders related to housing and settlements. This should not be the responsibility of the housing sector alone since tackling these issues involves complex socio-economic factors. For instance, approximately one billion people currently live in informal settlements, primarily in urban areas in low and middle-income countries (Satterthwaite, 2020). It can be predicted a large portion of those are of sub-standard quality houses, i.e., built not abiding by the building code. They have poor utilities, such as an inadequate sewer system that will overflow during hard rain. There is a poor clean water piping system and, hence, massive groundwater use. Houses are in dense settlements, many of which are attached.

Those people live in vulnerable areas that are prone to various hazards. Fire and floods might repeatedly be experienced due to their living conditions. To add more severe, an earthquake might cause numerous houses to collapse and loss of life due to their vulnerable structure. Loss of livelihood is unavoidable since many houses are used as a workplace. The risk might be aggravated due to climate change.

The root of all those problems is poverty, in which people have little option about where and what kind of house they live. The more people stay in that community, the more people might feel okay with vulnerable houses and living conditions. Therefore, awareness campaigns for safer housing through seismic retrofitting programs or healthier living environments will have little effect. The demand might be low if a cost factor is incurred. Moreover, it should not be a single-house intervention but addressed from a community or settlement approach. Hence, the ecosystem that enables housing improvement should be created.

Affordable building materials for retrofitting should be available to replace poor building materials in local hardware stores. In many cases, hardware stores sell low-quality and unacceptable construction materials to sell it at lower prices. Provision of construction and retrofitting training to add more builders and enable house owners to work on their houses. Also, improvement of all utilities, such as clean water and sewer. All of these should have an impact on their income. To some extent, they should be able to work on house maintenance or upgrading. This enormous task needs substantial funding and coordinated action.

Coordinated action is needed because various stakeholders will work simultaneously on poverty reduction, disaster risk reduction, service upgrades, climate change, and adaptation. Unfortunately, those initiatives were implemented during the decade but not as integrated interventions. This integration will serve many interests at once and harmonize government policies. Moreover, it might strengthen collaboration amongst stakeholders, including house owners, to create resilient housing. 

Arwin Soelaksono

Post-disaster Housing Reconstruction and Climate Crisis

Tackling the climate crisis in post-disaster housing recovery is still an extra mile that must be pursued. Nowadays, the more significant part of reconstruction for resilience is the effort to abide by the building code. At the same time, climate impacts are felt in unprecedented wildfires, floods, storms, and droughts worldwide, to which housing recovery has contributed. For instance, during Aceh, Indonesia's post-tsunami reconstruction, the construction materials were dominated by mass-produced industrialized materials, dramatically increasing CO2 emissions, mainly due to the massive use of reinforced concrete, concrete blocks, brick, and steel. (O’Brien et al. 2008). Developed countries also have similar challenges, and with more advanced technologies, the post-disaster reconstruction work in the disaster areas of these countries will emit significant CO2 emissions (Dou, Y. et al. 2022). In short, there is always additional carbon emission in every reconstruction in addition to the housing construction in the development setting. 

Several reasons may impede the reduction of carbon emissions during the housing recovery. Using imported construction materials, usually from mass production, will impact carbon emissions. This condition happens if housing assistance is delivered as a product. The housing actors already have a solution even though the disaster has not occurred yet. They match the housing product with the typical disaster. For instance, contractors are deployed to install modular structures following an earthquake. They might know that using these construction materials and transporting them to the affected areas may increase carbon emissions.  But the need to swiftly rebuild made them take this option.

Another option is housing assistance, a process done by the affected people and supported by the government or aid organizations. These initiatives must enhance local market capacities and its system, i.e., improvement of builders’ skills and availability of proper construction materials. This approach might fail if housing actors cannot provide adequate technical and project management assistance. Moreover, reconstruction agencies must ensure access to complement the reconstruction activities, such as job creation, health, and education facilities. 

Both approaches, whether delivering housing solutions as a product or through a process, still need to improve in reducing carbon emissions. Providing solution as a product might have a rigid system to change due to mass production, and its installation technology is challenging to change. While reconstruction through a process, the cost becomes sensitive due to more initiatives on self-recovery to reduce carbon emissions, which means new construction material or technology should be adopted. However, there is still room to introduce climate-friendly reconstruction through the process since it is a more flexible approach. Therefore, more research is needed to enable self-recovery by adopting climate resilience initiatives in any region. More financial subsidies are also required so that every household can access more affordable low-carbon emissions products and technologies.

Arwin Soelaksono

Photo: Liputan6.com

Two mainstreams in housing recovery post-disaster

There are two mainstreams on the housing recovery post-disaster as policymakers and aid agencies see when they support the affected people. The first approach is delivering assistance with the house as a product. Since contractors built it for the affected people, with uniform design and the same construction material, sometimes with modular elements, homeowners will receive it as a turn-key project. It is a quick intervention as people need to return to their houses badly. 

The second approach is through a process that involves a series of consultations among related stakeholders. It is longer compared to the first approach. The house design, construction material, and methodology depend on the local capacities and availability. However, this writing expresses that the second approach, i.e., the through process, is more strategic to achieve sustainable recovery, not only building back houses but also improving access to well-being and livelihood.

But why is delivering houses as products still popular? This approach is more favorable from a socio-political perspective due to less room for political tension from political parties whose constituents are in temporary shelters. Construction companies and vendors producing modular structural elements are happy since they can benefit from this reconstruction. But from the beneficiaries' perspective, there are several issues. Various sizes of family members can not be fit with a single house design. A two-room house can only fit a family with one child. If they want to expand the house, they have small capabilities to construct since they have yet to participate in the construction. Moreover, the materials used to build their houses might be available in something other than local hardware stores. Hence, it is an issue of sustainability both for expansion and maintenance.

Common questions asked by those who prefer delivering houses as a product, i.e., what kind of house is suitable for a particular disaster? What kind of construction material and system can be provided quickly? Then, they will deliver construction materials, systems, and contractors to build the houses. All of those are standard norms to be applied in their recovery strategy.

On the other hand, those who are inclined toward the process approach will ask about the local capacities and resources available. They aim to improve the local market - builders and hardware stores - and maximize the use of available material. Hence, when they think about house design and how to build, they will follow the reality in the field. Similar to practices in the development context, enhancing local builders needs proper training. It needs supply chain interventions so local hardware stores can sell appropriate construction materials. Improving access becomes essential since it is not only for construction materials but also for other aspects such as livelihood. The strategy is developed based on how homeowners and their builders can build houses and abide by the code. Even if it is not a swift rebuild, the local capacities can grow and become embedded naturally. Since the approach is a process, the current condition becomes a solid foundation for connecting to the larger market and services in the future.

Besides sustainability, the process approach can be linked to future disaster resilience. Genuine resilience is not grafted by quick-fix intervention but needs changes from within, i.e., improvement of local capacities surrounded by an adequate ecosystem for recovery.

Arwin Soelaksono

Photo: IG @tatansyuf  https://bit.ly/3Gcdof3.
 

 

Creating an ecosystem that enables acceleration of housing self-recovery in the post-disaster context

My paper on " Creating an ecosystem that enables acceleration of housing self-recovery in the post-disaster context " has been published in the latest AIWEST-DR 2023 proceedings in the E3S Web of Conferences. You can download it for free using this link: click here 

Abstract

During reconstruction, the recovery actors might overlook the connections between external and internal push factors. These factors can positively impact the processes to accelerate and produce long-term benefits beyond construction. Consequently, the ecosystem which should strengthen the self-recovery initiatives cannot be formed. Whereas, inside the ecosystem, the function of the market can be amplified by government policies and strategies. External push, such as using contractor companies and imposing deadlines, can speed up the reconstruction but will have problems both in sustainability and inclusivity. Government or aid agencies might set deadlines for the reconstruction program. It might happen if all support systems are in place. A deadline is inevitable since the recovery program might be ended due to program closure. Expecting that imposing the deadline will accelerate the process will only be partially effective.

On the other hand, applying the push factors needs to pay attention to the nature of the genuine housing recovery, i.e., self-recovery initiatives and local market capacities. Hence, those initiatives and capabilities should be strengthened by internal push. The capacities of the market actors, which are the architects, engineers, builders, hardware stores, and even homeowners, should be strengthened to meet the demand for massive reconstruction. The data for this research was collected through field observations to interview the market actors, government officers, and other recovery actors, such as service providers and aid organizations. The data was analyzed by referring to the relevant academic and grey literature to find the relation of actors' capacities with timelines and the quality of houses constructed.

Arwin Soelaksono

Keywords:

Housing recovery, reconstruction, self-recovery, post-disaster, construction market.

Investing in humanitarian-development nexus

There is a gap that could impede housing recovery post-disaster, i.e., the absence of the practical application of relief-development continuum principles. Meanwhile, strengthening the humanitarian-development nexus was identified as a top priority at the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit, but the implementation is complex. It started with the nature of funding and the traditional practices; there is a distinction between humanitarian action and development aid, which results in different time frames and modalities. In the housing post-disaster context, humanitarian aid should provide shelter assistance soon after the disaster. On the other hand, Build Back Better, which includes delivering access to better living such as health, education, and livelihood, needs development aid. Hence, the nexus is essential to establish a transition or overlap between the delivery of humanitarian assistance and the provision of long-term development assistance.

In many cases, agencies, with their resources and expertise in humanitarian, are supporting the affected people and local authorities with temporary shelter or other non-food items. Meanwhile, other institutions that are experts on permanent housing are preparing their assistance, which will commence when the recovery period starts. So, the gap seen by the affected people as other agencies just finished their support while they have to wait for further assistance for long-term recovery will resume at a specific time. This gap should be eliminated if there is a clear pathway connecting humanitarian assistance and development support. It is OK if some agencies have their mandate only to support temporary assistance or others only support housing in the development context. The issue is the gap.

From the construction perspective, the transition from temporary shelter to permanent housing should not be disrupted. Establishing the construction market and its supply chain should be started before the recovery period. During recovery, the provision of construction materials, builders, engineers, and architects should be available sufficiently. As proven in many recovery programs, it takes considerable time to prepare all of these since there is no guarantee that those items and resources are already available in the affected area. The ecosystem that enables those items and resources to enlarge along the growing demand for reconstruction should be prepared. For instance, if the affected area is remote, rural, and far from development, good quality of construction materials and builders becomes a big issue. 

This initiative has both positive and negative sides. The negative is that the donors, local authorities, and agencies are unfamiliar with where to put this assistance because it is not relief or development. Some might see this as development assistance, but it will be implemented in the relief period. Also, it won't be easy to justify using humanitarian funding since these are not delivering immediate needs. But the positive side is the nexus will help proper preparation as soon as possible, including planning to improve other essential services such as health, education, and livelihood. Hence, it can work well if the assistance is delivered in settlement approaches instead of sector-wise. It should be through localization and community development rather than a highly centralized response. Lastly, there should be more advocacy investing in the humanitarian-development nexus to the donors, authorities, and agencies to achieve a robust structure that abides by the building code and sustainable housing recovery.

Arwin Soelaksono

humanitarian-development.org  

Photo credit: Madrina Mazhar

References:

1. Chaggar, Andrew. The Analytical and Practical Application of Relief-Development Continuum Principles to the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, focusing on Community-Based Reconstruction in the Context of Phang Nga, Thailand. Centre for Development Studies School of the Environment & Society. University of Wales Swansea. (2007)

2. Strand, Arne. Humanitarian–development Nexus. In: Humanitarianism: Keywords. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004431140/BP000048.xml?body=pdf-60830

3. Stamness, Eli. Rethinking the Humanitarian-Development Nexus. Policy Brief 24/2016. Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. (2016)

Applying a more flexible core housing concept in self-recovery setting

Understanding the genuine core housing concept in post-disaster recovery is the path to a more flexible and appropriate housing solution to help affected people in their self-recovery process. However, government and aid agencies should be aware that even though core housing might enable swift rebuilding with fewer resources for initial construction, some aspects could become obstacles to future expansion. Hence, in the last two decades, the focus has been on something other than the core house itself but on homeowners' ability to rebuild or repair their houses.

If the urgency is a quick rebuild, then shelter/housing actors might be tempted to work with the combination of construction technology and materials that fast construction can be implemented. For instance, they were building a house with a modular structure with parts and connections using tools and materials unavailable in the area. It would be difficult for the homeowners if they want to repair or expand their houses according to their needs. Skills and tools become an issue for proper construction.

Another quick rebuild approach can be seen by just providing a set of designs. Government or aid agencies offer a catalog of designs for homeowners to rebuild their houses. However, there are some challenges in this context. Some designs need to fit with the space of land owned by the homeowner. For instance, in rural Nepal, having a square footprint design in the mountainous terrain is challenging since the narrow base available space is mostly rectangular. Therefore, there is a need for design assistance beyond just design provision.

Since housing recovery is a continuum process from emergency to safer houses constructed with access to social services, there is an imperative to connect the housing construction to that access. Connecting the construction process to livelihood and other income-generating initiatives is the most difficult. However, the core housing concept with self-rebuild initiatives can give more opportunities to homeowners to build their capacities, network, and connect their construction activities with other businesses—for instance, improvement of the supply chain of construction materials and builder services. The supply chain can be strengthened with the provision of various construction materials. We should be aware that failing to enhance the supply chain might lead to substantial inflation due to the scarcity of construction materials. It happened in early 2006 during Aceh's post-tsunami housing reconstruction; the price of red brick tripled due to the massive rebuild. Setting up a new factory of construction materials in the affected area affects price stability and income generation for people living there. Training for builders on proper construction at the earliest might help to address the availability of skilled builders.

Hence, how do we ensure the core housing concept works best during housing recovery? Homeowners should construct the core house using their available resources, and government and aid agencies should provide assistance that fits their capacities. Multiple house designs, training and mentoring of builders, and oversight should be provided. During these two decades, these approaches have been getting more acceptance. The focus is not on the core house itself; it has been shifted to homeowners' ability to rebuild or repair their houses. Considering the initial resources would not be sufficient, they need to be assisted in repairing or rebuilding the most required part of the house. Moreover, this assistance should connect more comprehensive access, such as health and livelihood, to ensure community well-being in the future.

Arwin Soelaksono

Suitable time to establish housing recovery strategy

Establishing a post-disaster housing recovery strategy should be neither too early nor too late. Too early means recovery actors develop the plan based on their organization competencies, proven to work well in the previous mission. On the other hand, if it is too late, there will be consequences such as a lack of sufficient resources, missed opportunities to collaborate with other actors and the imminent threat of inflation. We need to realize that every disaster is unique due to the magnitude of the loss and damage, the impact on people, and the socio-economic condition in the affected area.

During the earthquake assessment of damaged buildings, recovery actors should obtain sufficient information for developing the strategy. Some essential aspects we need to cover, for instance, homeowners' preferences on repairing or rebuilding their houses, their livelihood, and the local market, which can support the recovery process. The government plan for housing recovery is also crucial, but it also takes time for them to issue it.

Homeowners need time to recover from grieves and shock. Some of them even take refuge in the neighboring province. Hence, they do not know how to repair or rebuild if their livelihood is also affected. Local markets that provide builders and construction materials will need more support to fulfill the demand. The consequences are lower quality materials and services that homeowners will use, leading to a vulnerable structure. Local capacities are always the issue and need time to balance the supply and demand.

Another information needed is who other recovery actors have similar interests in the affected area. Their presence might have a positive or negative impact on the recovery program. The negative impact would be competition needing more resources in the area. Therefore, collaboration among actors should be pursued if working on a similar site can not be avoided. There are plenty of opportunities for cooperation, such as strengthening the supply chain to ensure suitable quality materials can be adequately available. Improving builders' capacities to ensure build back better. Then, advocacy to the local government and business entities to strengthen economic activities to support the housing recovery.

What then? No need for prompt planning for intervention? By no means! The team should be deployed for damage assessment and recovery strategy formulation as early as possible. It takes time to identify the cause of damage due to natural hazards such as earthquakes. Is it because of improper construction materials, building practices, or both? Finding other recovery actors or service providers that can partner in implementing the housing recovery also takes time. Because those potential partners also need time to plan and discuss with their headquarters and donors for new fruitful initiatives. For instance, from personal experience, it was a solid two months when I developed a housing recovery strategy to support 3,000 households following the 2015 Nepal earthquake. Two months after the quake, I was deployed for the damage assessment, including the beneficiaries and partner organization assessment. Comparing the S-curve developed during the strategy formulation to the actual S-curve showed that the strategy was proven suitable. Read more at https://bit.ly/3oEsLSL .

Another urgency for being on time is to ensure the most vulnerable will stay caught up. If an ordinary household can build houses in 3 months, the most vulnerable might need a year. Moreover, the most vulnerable families should be prioritized to kick start the recovery for education and capacity development of local resources.

Hence, the timing for not being in a rush or too late on developing strategy is defined by ensuring all aspects written above are covered. It should be soon after the disaster event, but it needs time for thorough planning. Not only our planning but also give time for other organizations and resources in the field to develop their plan and capacities.

 

Arwin Soelaksono

Photo:  Morocco's High Atlas Mountains. Image credit: IG @emiliemadiphotographer at https://www.instagram.com/p/CxaM68-MTSK/?igshid=NmQ4MjZlMjE5YQ%3D%3D&img_index=1  

 

Seismic-resistant buildings that were taught by the older generations

Every nation has traditional buildings that withstand earthquake events since people built them through trial and error for hundreds of years. The older generations passed the knowledge to their younger ones on how they meticulously learned the flow of the earthquake forces in the structural elements. Through that, they applied the understanding of structural composition and its connection to ensure the building's integrity. Moreover, the traditional structure is seismic resistant and fulfills cultural appropriateness and acceptance. Hence, we can enjoy robust and beautiful heritage buildings in many countries that blend with nature. I am reflecting on DR. Teddy Boen's teaching when I attended his class more than 30 years ago. 

But, nowadays, constructing traditional houses can be considerably expensive. Cities have become more populated; therefore, people must build vertically so that more than one family can live in the same structure. Limited land forces people to build multistory buildings, a new knowledge for everyone. On the other hand, due to economies of scale, people become familiar with steel and reinforced concrete structures, which materials and builders are available in good numbers in the market.

Due to economic pressure, construction methodologies to build faster are more evolving than the technology to reduce the earthquake impact. For instance, since the early 1990s, it has been common to construct multistory buildings in fast-track. It showed that construction companies can pour the concrete floor every 5-7 days for the upper level. The need for fast construction is understandable since the fixed costs of renting tools and machinery, such as tower cranes and construction team salaries, are expensive. For good projects, they have construction management in which the project manager ensures that construction materials have been installed correctly as quality assurance measures. The problem becomes aggravated if the effort to reduce cost sacrifices the meticulous construction detail. Some builders even go against the law by lowering the quality by reducing cement and reinforcement in the concrete structure.

There is some reflection we can take following the latest earthquake events nowadays. What went wrong with so many casualties due to damage and collapsed structures? In the present times, we have been introduced to new construction technologies and a wide variety of building materials, which is good to some extent. Still, we need to be careful of the paradigm that robust, fast, and economical can always be obtained in constructing a building. It is not due to the methodology but to the builders' capabilities, which relate to their expertise and resources. 

As we might learn from our older generation, they carefully put seismic-resistant features in their buildings. Nowadays, builders need to design, build, and ensure every element is correctly installed following the code, which should be ahead of any measures rather than reducing costs through fast-track or other initiatives to cut costs. Government and aid agencies should emphasize this idea when supporting the post-disaster housing recovery. The government should enforce sanctions on those who violate the codes. Aid agencies need to support self-recovery initiatives by developing the capacities of local actors, including homeowners, to rebuild a robust structure according to their needs.

Arwin Soelaksono

📸 Damaged buildings in Antakya, Hatay, Türkiye.

 

Housing Recovery and Time-frame Dilemma

Housing recovery post-disaster always takes considerable time; hence, instead of rushing to force quick-fix solutions, government and aid agencies should deliver housing assistance according to the pace, capacities, and affected people's preferences.

Major disasters always take time for housing recovery. For instance, following the 2010 earthquake, Haiti took more than ten years. Following the 2011 Great East Japan earthquake, the government planned for ten years of recovery. Nepal took more than six years after the 2015 Gorkha earthquake. But there are some people who are still working on their recovery beyond their government recovery time frame. The problem with massive recovery campaigns is that some people are still struggling to rebuild their housing while their neighbors have already completed the reconstruction.  People in their vulnerability will potentially left behind due to a lack of capacity to acquire resources such as builders, construction materials, and banking systems.  

The affected people surely want to get their lives back to normal, including having their houses rebuilt. From the government's point of view, prolonged housing recovery time will potentially create social and political tension. Hence, in many countries, pressure from political actors for a quick rebuild adds noise to the recovery plan. Aid agencies also facing the same challenges. Due to limited funding, which is also reflected in the limited timeframe, many are tempted to deliver quick assistance but not significantly contribute to the affected people's recovery pathways. Learned from the Asian Tsunami 2004, fishermen in Aceh, Indonesia, who usually live in wooden and timber houses, got housing donations made of brick and reinforced concrete. Since it was a turn-key project, they just received the houses, they have no ability to expand, maintain, or repair. Therefore, many of those houses were broken and unrepaired. The hardest lesson learned was that giving houses will not automatically correlate to improving the earning ability. There are other factors that need to be provided, not merely housing construction per se. 

From the affected people's perspective, they are in shock due to the loss of their family members, their houses, or maybe their livelihood. They need time to digest and comprehend their situation and limitations. Some of them may take refuge in other cities. These situations show that affected households have uniqueness, and we need to be aware of their specific needs. The problems are aggravated if their land is missing due to landslide or tsunami. This includes if they are not allowed to rebuild their houses on their original site due to government regulations that their land is unsafe to rebuild. On the other hand, the construction market those are builders, and construction materials, need time to balance the supply and demand due to massive reconstruction.

Hence, housing recovery needs to be seen as a massive collaboration between recovery actors and the construction market which affected people should be part of it. Both affected people and builders should be trained for proper construction. Government and aid agencies should encourage self-recovery and at the same time, strengthen the initiative with construction market improvement through subsidies, capacity building, and streamlining the policies. Aid agencies with their limitation need to find meaningful contributions that link the house rebuild with their livelihood for sustainability. Shelter or housing organizations should collaborate with other NGOs who are experts in livelihood and land issues since housing recovery is not merely a house rebuild. All of these are taking considerable time since those are processes; in the end, solid collaboration will deliver comprehensive and long-term solutions to the affected people.

Arwin Soelaksono

Photo from Carl Courts Getty Images Photo Journalist https://twitter.com/GettyImagesNews/status/1702063191914668088

Screening on seismic vulnerabilities of high-rise urban buildings

The Turkiye earthquake sent an important message to all governments and construction practitioners. Massive damages can happen anywhere at any time to vulnerable buildings due to earthquake hazards. Newer buildings usually are less vulnerable due to improved building codes, particularly in high-rise steel and concrete frame buildings.[i] The key word is abiding by the building code and renewed building code. For a moment, let us keep aside the improvement of building codes as structural engineers and government who, from their studies, have to formulate a new code to follow. This writing is focused on ensuring safe structures where many people already dwell, for which government, construction, shelter, and settlement (S&S) practitioners are responsible.

Are multi-stories building in our areas safe? Were they constructed following the code, and their current usage is according to where it was designed? If the structure would damage or collapses, those affected are not only people who dwell and work in the building. Their neighbor, local livelihood, and public services will also be affected. Hence, the government and building owners have to conduct screening on its safety to minimize the risk and, at the same time to provide proper assistance when the hazard turns into a disaster.

Screening and analyzing risks of high-rise buildings

There are more than 23,000 high-rise buildings above 100 m in height worldwide.[ii] These buildings are exposed to hazards, but their vulnerabilities depend on age, height, use, building quality, subsoil, symmetry, and regularity.[iii] For instance, regular and symmetrical buildings are more robust than irregular structures such as L-shape, which might have additional loads, such as twists, due to earthquakes. On the age part, for instance, on screening 98 high-rise buildings with 8-15 floors in Surabaya, Indonesia. It was found that 21 buildings have fallen into the vulnerable category due to being built before 2002, in which the earthquake regulations have not been applied in Indonesia.[iv]

Since many buildings have to be assessed on their seismic vulnerability, large-scale rapid screening should be conducted. Currently, some tools can be used, such as FEMA P-154 Rapid Visual Screening[vii], there is a web-based[v], and also there is an Android application[vi].  But even if large-scale screening using those tools is launched, the screening quality will depend on the engineers’ capacities and experiences. Those data should be analyzed and interpreted by experienced engineers to identify the vulnerability and, later on, how to strengthen them seismically. Getting the screening recommendations will take considerable time as so many buildings need to be checked.

Even if the recommendation reaches the building owners, there is no guarantee they will immediately strengthen it even if they know their building is vulnerable to earthquake. Seismic strengthening, even if it is more economical rather than building a new one after a disaster, many people still need to find this initiative as an investment. It is increasingly costly if there are many vulnerable parts in the building. On the other hand, there is no enforcement for the building owner to retrofit their buildings seismically. Also, there is no incentive for building owners to apply retrofitting. Hence, there should be regulations and incentives that every building owner can be responsible for the safety of their buildings, whether it is an apartment or an office building.

Risk reduction measures and preparing the response in the urban context

The data and analysis are valuable information for the government and S&S practitioners. The risk and its magnitude can be mapped for contingency planning. For instance, how many buildings, local businesses, and public services would be affected if an earthquake happened in a particular magnitude? There should be sufficient local capacities to respond to the disaster at desirable times.

The developed local capacities should be able to support affected people who lost their dwellings according to their circumstances and recovery pathways. The support also should not diminish the affected people’s capacities to self-recover. On the other hand, government and S&S practitioners should strengthen the self-recover initiatives with sound technical guidance. This is to ensure a safer rebuild in more sustainable ways.

As other sectors should also be involved in recovery, local government and the S&S community should support the market’s reopening through shelter assistance. The assistance should trigger a multiplier effect through the construction job market and building material market, which is massively needed during rebuilding. In many parts of the world, the construction sector in high-rise buildings is widely known as the prime mover of economic activities. They will draw other businesses to participate, such as transportation that brings construction materials, restaurants, communications, etc. The government should have a strategy to maintain market stability; otherwise, at some point, there will be a scarcity of construction materials or the job market. This instability would lead to inflation which might hamper the reconstruction process.

S&S practitioners might provide training for builders to improve construction practices and help them obtain builder certificates, which also need to work on. These builders with particular skills can work in middle or high-rise building construction since workers must show their credentials before being hired.

All of these are to improve responder capacity on the whole level, from the beginning, which is preparedness measures to the reconstruction phases. On the other hand, if the building owners follow the recommendation from the screening, many buildings can be seismically strengthened, then the level of damage will not be massive.

Arwin Soelaksono

Photo taken by: Hazal Güverçinci

---

[i] Cochrane S.W., Schaad, W.H. Assessment of Earthquake vulnerability of buildings. 1992

[ii] https://www.integralrisk.global/how-many-high-rise-buildings-are-there-in-the-world/

[iii] Cochrane S.W., Schaad, W.H. Assessment of Earthquake vulnerability of buildings. 1992

[iv] Wahyu Riyanto et al 2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 739 012040` Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment of High-Rise Buildings in Surabaya using RViSITS Android Application

[v] Kassem. M.M, et. al. Assessment of Seismic Building Vulnerability Using Rapid Visual Screening Method through Web-Based Application for Malaysia. 2021

[vi] Wahyu Riyanto et al 2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 739 012040` Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment of High-Rise Buildings in Surabaya using RViSITS Android Application

[vii] Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A Handbook Third Edition FEMA P-154 / January 2015 

Return home, recovery pathway difficult to measure

Today (May 6), we mark three months of the Türkiye and Syrian earthquake, and it is reported that about 20 percent[i] of those affected by the earthquake who migrated to the cities they used as refuge have returned. For instance, only in Hatay province, Türkiye, 92,000 out of 565,000 who have taken refuge in areas outside Hatay have returned.[ii] The number is expected to rise since more people are having trouble paying rent due to increased house rent prices. Turkish Housing Sector Group reported that house rents in Türkiye increased by 16 percent on average following the earthquakes.[iii] On the other hand, authorities believe 65-70% of families in tents are from homes that are low or have minor damage[iv], so there is a possibility they might be returning to their homes. So the number of returnees will be around 1 million since about 1.8 million people are currently in tents.[v]

Influencing factors on the scale of return and its challenges

In every affected people, there is always the desire to return home. There are external factors that can influence their decision.  The most influential is their confidence due to the aftershocks diminishing. When they overcome the trauma, they will think about their assets and livelihood back home. Their children need to be back in the classroom. If those living in the refuge share this idea, one family can be a pioneer and create a bandwagon effect[vi]. Then there will be a massive home returning.

But some challenges can impede the smoothness of this process. Unprepared utilities in their home areas will put them in tents or refuges longer. Water can be an issue, such as debit and the quality due to the pipe needing repair. Repairing of pipes needs to wait until rubble removal can be completed. Electricity also needs to be well functioned as they need to run their appliances moreover the coming summer they need for the refrigerator. They might also consider repairing their houses, but more than hardware vendors and builders will be required in the current market.

Preparing massive return

It is essential to understand the uniqueness of recovery pathways. People must be able to choose which recovery process they should follow. But they can be assisted by preparing the market. As inflation of construction material and labor costs is inevitable, strengthening the local market can reduce the impact of inflation. If cement, steel rebar, and other materials can be available with sufficient amounts and stable prices during recovery, the risk of interruption of the recovery process can be minimized. All of these need government policy and local economic development strategy. It is always challenging to link the housing recovery with sustainable economic growth if extensive umbrella to maintain the market is unavailable.

Other market actors are the builders. As this disaster could be the biggest in decades, skilled or qualified builders are less than needed. Therefore adding new builders or even training the homeowners to repair their houses will be crucial. There should be messaging and training in their home areas to ensure they can repair their houses properly. Otherwise, people just put plaster and paint, such as cosmetics but overlook to ensure that weakened parts need to be repaired.

Lastly, the decision to return home or stay in the tents or refuge solely depends on each household. It cannot be predicted when or how big, but it can be anticipated. Government and humanitarian agencies have an essential role in anticipating the return and preparing the ecosystem so that self-recovery can naturally happen and robust house can be achieved.

Gaziantep May 6, 2023. 

Arwin Soelaksono

Photo: Twitter @StepHaiselden[vii]

---

[i] Support to Life. Emergency Situation Report 26 April 2023

[ii] OCHA. 2023 Earthquakes Situation Report No. 11 As of 23 March 2023

[iii] Support to Life. Emergency Situation Report 26 April 2023

[iv] Temporary Settlement Support Sector Turkey EQ Response Sector Briefing 27 April 2023

[v] Shelter Sector Türkiye. Information brief Shelter Sector No. 1 – 28 April 2023

[vi] The tendency for people to adopt certain behaviors, styles, or attitudes simply because others are doing so.

[vii] https://twitter.com/StepHaiselden

Earthquake engineering is for everyone

 

Earthquake engineering is not only for the elite but for everyone. The consequences of not abiding by the building code will never differentiate engineers or ordinary people. Understanding the earthquake’s impact only needs common sense, but many people intentionally ignore it since the occurrence is rare. The good news is that for more than four decades, the sophisticated earthquake engineering code gradually translated into guidance and regulation. The engineered and non-engineering buildings have the direction to design and build with the help of various guidance available.  Building Code enforcement is embedded in the building permit when people want to build their houses or other buildings.  

Then, why are so much devastation due to earthquakes in many countries? For instance, from 1998-2017, 747,234 deaths and USD 661 billion loss were recorded worldwide due to earthquakes[i]. As people know that earthquakes are unpredictable, many questions exist regarding whether the risk can be minimized. Following the Padang, Indonesia earthquake (2009) and the Haiti earthquake (2011), the campaign on “Earthquakes don’t kill people, collapsed buildings do” was started. This initiative is to put enforcing the building codes and standards more seriously, as it has been reported that They have significantly reduced deaths in Japan and the United States.[ii]

Then, there must be links between the campaign of enforcing the code and poor construction and the use of the building after construction is completed.

As humanitarian shelter and settlement practitioners, what contribution can we make to minimize the risks? There are many, but in this writing, I am proposing just two of them.

To begin with builder training. In non-engineered house construction, people must know that there is Building Code. This mainly happens in developing countries and many of which are rural. The builders need more knowledge and skills. The unavailability of appropriate construction materials aggravates this situation. For instance, there is no deformed steel rebar, cement is too expensive due to transportation costs, and sand is contaminated with saline or contains silt. Therefore, builders need to be trained. They need to know how to fix the rebar and properly install building elements from the foundation to the roof.

Lastly, a campaign on how to use the building properly. There were incidents due to the removal of columns since the homeowner wanted to use their house as the shop. Other cases found that homeowners added more stories since their families were growing. It is their house; they can do anything according to their needs, but it should be community messaging; the houses need seismic strengthening due to functional changes. If their houses collapse, it might affect homeowners and their neighbors. And the trained builder can work with this seismic strengthening.

Arwin Soelaksono

Gaziantep, Turkiye. April 9, 2023.

Photo: personal archive. Palu, 2019.

---

[I] Economic Losses, Poverty and Disasters 1998-2017, The Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED), The UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR).

[ii] Reliefweb. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/earthquakes-don%E2%80%99t-kill-people-collapsed-buildings-do

Big push to accelerate reconstruction post-disaster

Everyone feels that housing recovery post-disaster is always awfully slow. Hence, governments, social societies, and affected people are considering accelerating the process. But people need to remember the nature of the genuine recovery and construction process.

There are two options for accelerating the rebuilding process, i.e., from external and internal. Both impact the process but have different results and long-term benefits. External push can speed up the reconstruction but have problems both in sustainability and inclusivity. Two examples of external push i.e., using contractor companies and imposing deadlines. This article was written based on reflections on the experience of the housing recovery in Indonesia and Nepal. 

In some housing recovery, the government may give construction work to construction companies. Those companies with experience in the construction of real estate houses could work faster than the houses the homeowners built. But there is a limitation. Contractor companies are primarily interested in modular structures, and the houses, such as apartments and compound housing, are not scattered. For construction companies, building private houses with various designs and various building materials in scattered locations will add operation costs. Also, it reduces the profit obtained from discounts if they use the same building materials for the whole house. In these landed houses, turnkey projects mean homeowners who have not participated in the construction process will have problems when they want to upgrade or work on maintenance. Hence, sustainability has become one of the issues.

Government or aid agencies might impose deadlines for the reconstruction program in which exceptional conditions or assistance might be ended at a specific time. Understandably, post-disaster reconstruction phases will be finished. But expecting that imposing the deadline will accelerate the process will only be partially effective. Only those with adequate capacities to rebuild can catch up with deadlines. Those with internal challenges such as poverty, areas with poor infrastructures, and people unreached by government and aid organizations will be left behind. 

For instance, the Nepal government imposed a deadline on housing recovery following the 2015 earthquake. Homeowners who could not finish the construction work at a particular milestone will not be eligible for the subsequent cash assistance. For some people, the milestone deadlines triggered their best effort to finish their houses. Since the recovery was owner-driven, not all homeowners can complete their houses to meet the deadlines. The most vulnerable people and those living in areas with difficult access to construction materials and technical support missed the deadline. 

Therefore, applying external push speeds up the recovery process, but it will not be a genuine rebuild since it does not solve the root of the cause of vulnerability. Hence, the effort should mainly strengthen the market systems and actors. These initiatives are to create an internal push to the recovery process.

At the peak of recovery, there will be inflation due to the scarcity of construction materials and the shortage of skilled laborers. Even if it is inevitable, the severe condition that can hamper the reconstruction process can still be anticipated. The supply chain should be managed so the construction material is not limited to a specific material. During the peak of Aceh’s post-tsunami recovery (2006), the price of red brick tripled. The construction was almost stopped since almost everyone could not afford to buy them. Therefore, architects and engineers should provide various housing designs with various building materials. Moreover, there should also be a massive campaign to reuse the salvaged material to reduce the need to purchase new materials.  From the government side, the policy of easing taxes related to construction materials should be applied. Furthermore, the government should ensure all infrastructures can support transporting construction materials to whole affected areas. Strengthening the market system should also cover reliable financial service providers (FSP). There should be a strategy and policy to support the most vulnerable people to access banks or other FSPs.

The market actors' capacities, architects, engineers, builders, and even homeowners should be strengthened. Post-disaster rebuild is not business as usual. The work volume is larger than the regular construction work and should also change the practices. Hence, there should be training on construction and oversight during the process. Advocacy to homeowners to build their knowledge and ability to construct their houses by themself if they own a landed house. If they live in a multi-story apartment, they know which apartment was built by following the code. 

All of these should be carried out as earliest as possible. It will take months and even a year or two before the effect can be realized. The market system and market actors can be continuously strengthened then the homeowners and other market actors can benefit from working toward the deadline.

Arwin Soelaksono

Photo: Women participating in building a house at Thulogaun, Nepal. From the personal archive.

Supporting the poor to rebuild

Türkiye earthquake. People in poorer areas suffered 3.5 times more damage than their richer neighbors[i]. Hence, their housing recovery takes longer, and many are expected to be poorly built or even left homeless. Government and aid agencies have to reduce this potential negative impact otherwise poverty and the social problem will get worse in the future.

Let the Türkiye government work on developing strategies and policies for a wide aspect of recovery not only housing and infrastructures. Hopefully, it will not stop only detaining building contractors for their alleged responsibility in the construction of buildings that failed to withstand the earthquakes. The problem has gone more than two decades. During the construction boom, the government failed to enforce the building code.[ii] It was a serious violation of the building’s safety. For instance, up to 75,000 buildings across the affected earthquake zone in southern Turkey have been given construction amnesties.[iii] The amnesty suspectedly was not based on engineering calculation and the practice was vulnerable to corruption. Hence, the government should reform the practice of construction work to ensure all regulations and building code are enforced. Then people might expect the regulations will apply to anyone no matter their socioeconomic status.

Then what will be the contribution of aid organizations and social societies to the rebuilding initiatives?  Actually, there is various assistance that can be contributed, but at least there are two that can be offered to fill the gap. The gap is between the capacity of poor people to self-recover and the ability of the government to provide assistance.

First, support to balance supply and demand. At the peak of massive reconstruction, there will be a huge demand for construction materials, skilled builders, engineers, and various service providers. Inflation is inevitable, then at some point, only wealthy people can continue to rebuild. This should be anticipated as earliest as possible. Technical experts from aid organizations can suggest new approaches to construction from seismic retrofitting to new construction with various building materials. Depending on only a few methods and particular construction materials will create inflation. Construction training for homeowners, and local builders and developing the capacity of engineers are essential. Everyone related to rebuilding including the homeowner needs to be aware of building code and construction norms. Everyone must respect the law of how nature works. Earthquakes can still be a hazard and not turn into disasters if the infrastructure can absorb its forces.

Lastly, the provision of top-up assistance to the most vulnerable. The government might provide support to earthquake-affected people. But due to their socioeconomic condition, the poor and vulnerable people might find assistance does not be sufficient. Hence, identifying those who are vulnerable should be carried out very soon. These people should be prepared when the nationwide rebuilding starts. This specific additional support should also be agreed upon and supported by their neighbors and community leaders to reduce jealousy. The support might be the provision of additional funding, provision of construction materials, and builders, and oversight on the construction process.

These initiatives basically are to bring the poor and the vulnerable people to the same level as their neighbors. If the government enforces the code that must everyone follow, then we can expect everyone to have sufficient capacity to abide by the law. Then the build back safer can be achieved.

Arwin Soelaksono

Photo: The Journal[iv]

---

[i] https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2023/02/16/poor-areas-suffered-35-times-more-damage-in-turkeys-earthquake

[ii] https://seffaflik.medium.com/corruption-kills-turkey-earthquake-7884640db389

[iii] https://www.bbc.com/news/64568826

[iv] https://www.thejournal.ie/goal-employees-die-in-earthquake-in-turkey-and-syria-5991906-Feb2023/?utm_source=shortlink