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)