Collaboration for more comprehensive housing assistance

In supporting the housing recovery post-disaster, extensive funding is often associated with many rebuilt houses. This perception applies to any housing recovery setting. Whether the government or donor-driven leads it or supports to self-recovery approaches, numbers reflect achievements and budgets. It can be seen on the government recovery website, which mentions the names of the aid agencies, the working areas, and the number of houses built. But, just relying on house numbers can be misleading.  Aside from houses, other significant assistance, such as providing access to public infrastructure such as clinics and schools, and primarily to their livelihood, are often vague.

The provision of those mentioned above should be seen as a prerequisite for comprehensive recovery assistance. For instance, the absence of economic improvement will make them unable to extend their house or even repair it if something is broken. In a relocation area, the conditions can be worse; they might leave the housing that governments or recovery actors provided and go elsewhere to places where all infrastructures are available. For instance, following a tsunami or landslide, the government might issue a policy to relocate people in the affected area to safer places. The process of relocation itself might take years to complete. Often, only houses are provided without adequate infrastructure. And on many occasions, livelihood cannot be changed. For instance, relocating fisherman to safer areas that are too far from sea and fish markets will cost them on their daily transportation. Hence, a comprehensive solution should be designed before moving people to a relocation area.

The challenges for on-site recovery and relocation are similar if access is unavailable. Hence, recovery actors’ assistance should not be quantified only by the number of houses built but also by the area that provides a chance to improve living. The problem is that the cost of such recovery will be very expensive for a single recovery actor to shoulder. The need for collaboration with the non-housing agencies will be the solution. For instance, people might be overlooked when including agencies with expertise in land titling to solve ownership issues. Planning to set up a cooperative and new local entrepreneurship initiatives is sometimes discussed during rebuilding progress. On the other hand, those non-housing actors are also challenged to justify their assistance in a humanitarian intervention; mainly, their support is in the development phases.

Comprehensive recovery should be advocated as a preparedness measure; otherwise, establishing collaboration would be too late. The government should lead this initiative and develop a partnership model among recovery actors and non-humanitarian sectors. The opportunity for collaboration should be an advocacy that should be endorsed, resulting in standby mode if disaster events happen.

Arwin Soelaksono

Photo: https://japanesedoodleblog.blogspot.com/2022/03/about-day-of-march-11th-11-years.html 

Promising recovery time-frame

Setting expectations for housing rebuild post-disaster is crucial and should be conveyed to the affected people in the earliest aftermath. However, the government and aid agencies sometimes give their promises under pressure from the public, political parties, and donors. The immense pressure to quickly rebuild happens globally and not only in a particular country. This principle applies to any housing recovery, even in a humanitarian setting; the process cannot deny the nature of construction. It always takes time until the market, which consists of manpower, proper quality of construction material, and financial institutions are in place. To be added to the market is the fully functional infrastructure for supply chain and government systems. Haste recovery will only lead to poor-quality construction, which will eventually stop the process and bring more disappointment to affected people. Moreover, there is a risk that some people might not be included since, due to their circumstances, they are out of the list.

Government and recovery agents should pursue inclusive, build-back-better, and sustainable recovery but should be able to convey that the process needs time. Learn from other recovery; for instance, the recovery from Hurricane Ike in Texas, USA, might take up to 7 years, and more than 10 years for Haiti post-2010 earthquake. Following the 2011 earthquake in Japan, the government planned a 10-year recovery timeframe. During the housing recovery post-tsunami 2004 in Indonesia, the Chief of the Reconstruction program reminded the agencies to have a clear plan for the reconstruction, which can be communicated to the government and their beneficiaries. Conveying only the messages will not be adequate to calm public protest. Hence, recovery pathways should be seen by everyone.

Putting ourselves in the shoes of affected people will shape our priorities on recovery pathways based on their best interests. Hence, wherever possible, supporting their self-recovery would be the best option for sustainability. For those who have land, strengthening their capacities for rebuilding or retrofit, including opening access to financial support, will focus their energy on returning to normal life. This can be achieved through consultations, training, and other activities to engage their involvement. At the same time, governments develop their policy, systems, and infrastructure to enable recovery. These lessons came from governments and recovery agencies who worked in Japan post-2011 earthquake, Nepal in 2015, and Yogyakarta, Indonesia 2006 earthquake.

The biggest issue is those who don’t have land, who live in poverty and other vulnerable conditions, have to live longer in temporary accommodation. There should be additional support for them. It would be unfair if they receive a similar amount or value as others. Improvement in access to public facilities and financial support should be prioritized to secure their job and well-being.

Arwin Soelaksono

Photo: Doga Ayberk Demir/Shutterstock/The Conversation.  https://theconversation.com/turkey-earthquakes-one-year-on-the-devastation-has-exposed-deep-societal-scars-and-women-are-bearing-the-brunt-221819

Resilient community, essential factor for sustainable housing recovery

A resilient community is the key to housing self-recovery post-disaster, but there is no assurance they would rebuild robust structures without external assistance. Hundreds of thousands of houses were damaged when the #earthquake hit some of the villages in Nepal (2015) and in Yogyakarta and Klaten, both in Indonesia (2006). There were similarities in why massive destruction would happen, which were poorly built structures. The unprecedented magnitude of the earthquakes was the test of their construction qualities. Hence, the recovery process should be seen as an opportunity to transform the local capacities. New practices that the community might adopt with new norms should be infused. But this could happen if an enabling ecosystem is in place to strengthen the collaboration of communities, local markets, government, and recovery actors. 

Focusing on the community's capacity to self-rebuild is essential. All external reconstruction assistance is only temporary and would have no sustainability if the community could not be transformed. This also happens in resilient communities. The resilient community eagerly prepared to repair or rebuild their damaged houses soon after the disaster. Once they have money or construction materials, they will do it. The problem persists; no change in construction practices will lead to vulnerable houses being built. Hence, the support should not only be funding but also technical assistance through training and mentoring should be provided. The more resilient the community, the faster and more sustainable the new practices for adaptation. Since the reconstruction process will not be seen as individual efforts but as the community recovery, they will help each other until all houses can be built. 

The solid community can also pressure local hardware stores to sell only appropriate construction materials. As a business practice, local hardware stores will provide building materials to anticipate growing demand. They seek profit from volume; hence, they sell all that people might need, such as steel rebars, cement, bricks, and roofing materials. Since they want to provide a broad spectrum of customers, they sell various construction materials, including those of poor quality. Moreover, they also sell hazardous materials such as those containing asbestos for roofing. Hence, the demand for poor and unhealthy materials can be reduced if the community is solid. Together, they might object to the material being used in their area. On the other hand, the demand for appropriate materials can be increased, and the community can haggle for bigger discounts. 

However, not all communities are solid and resilient. They might behave negatively toward the process and give little interest in having a robust structure as required by the code. They would sacrifice safety for a bigger house that looks good in appearance and costs less. In this kind of community, recovery actors should deploy trained community mobilizers. These community mobilizers should convey messages on the urgency of building safer houses. It would take considerable time to change their mindset. Construction training for local builders and homeowners and mentoring should be delivered during recovery. Once the interest in robust and safer houses is inherent in their norms, they will stay in good construction practices, even if the recovery actors' support is gone. 

Arwin Soelaksono

Learn from 2024 Japan Earthquake

What could governments and aid agencies learn from the recent Japan Earthquake? With a magnitude of Mw 7.5, the earthquake took over 100 lives[i], and 1,370 houses were damaged[ii]. Those numbers may increase as evacuation and assessment are ongoing. Compared with other earthquakes, the casualties and damage are more minor, for instance, on an earthquake with a similar magnitude, Hebei, China, 1976. 242,719 people lost their lives, and 85 percent of the buildings in Tangshan collapsed or were rendered unusable[iii]. Izmit, Türkiye, 1999, 17,127 people died, and 127,251 buildings were damaged, with at least 60,434 others collapsed[iv]. Lastly, in West Sumatera, Indonesia 2009, took 1,115 lives and 181,665 buildings were damaged on various levels[v].

Following the West Sumatra earthquake, the slogan "earthquake don't kill people, but poorly built houses do" was introduced. Still, sadly, the slogan has a slight effect on the changing of attitude and construction practices. Meanwhile, Japanese engineers and their government consistently build safer cities by improving and enforcing building codes, innovating to reduce earthquake impact, and working on meticulous detail on the connection of construction elements. The video shows the buildings withstand cyclic earthquake load, proving their work was successful. However, don’t just copy their technology, which can make the structure flexible and reduce the impact of earthquakes using the damper. It is not as simple as that. We should learn the whole concept and apply every detail to achieve structure ductility, which prevents catastrophic failure.

Reflecting on how the Japanese did on a safer built environment, we should ask what our priorities are in house provision: affordable houses or safer ones.

Therefore, at least 3 things governments and aid agencies could collaborate on. Consistently improving building code, enforcing and campaigning that people would abide by, to begin with. Aid agencies that provide shelter and housing assistance following the disaster should encourage homeowners to prioritize safety over other aspects. This can be implemented through messaging and training of builders and homeowners. The challenging part is ensuring that the training can change the poor construction practices to new ones that abide by the code. It needs consistent coaching and monitoring.

Second, opening the channel for financing. Those who don’t have sound finances will impede retrofitting or rebuilding seismic resistance houses. For instance, banks still see retrofitting funds as not feasible since retrofitting costs should be around 30% compared to the cost of a new building house. Meanwhile, the effort cost for marketing and repayment are the same. The loan also needed to purchase proper quality building materials instead of cheap but poor ones.

Lastly, income improvement in the area should be made to complete the ecosystem[vi] . Non-housing agencies should contribute; otherwise, the abovementioned efforts cannot be achieved without economic improvement.

Arwin Soelaksono

---

[i] https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-earthquake-death-toll-tops-100-with-hundreds-still-missing-media-2024-01-06/

[ii] https://www.kompas.id/baca/english/2024/01/07/en-puluhan-wni-kehilangan-tempat-tinggal-gara-gara-gempa-jepang

[iii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tangshan_earthquake

[iv] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_%C4%B0zmit_earthquake

[v] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes

[vi] https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/abs/2023/84/e3sconf_aiwest-dr2023_03001/e3sconf_aiwest-dr2023_03001.html

 

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