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