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