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