Shelter kits support as a highly strategic decision in post-disaster

Focusing early support on moderately and lightly damaged homes can be a highly strategic decision, yet it is often overlooked in practice. In many disaster recovery programs, assessments and narratives concentrate on totally or heavily damaged housing and visible destruction. The pressure mainly comes from the media and political interests. If you watch TV or read in various media channels, you can see people in tents, temporary shelters, collapsed houses, and broken infrastructure. This overload of information drives our focus to this particular situation. Although it is essential to give close attention to homeowners whose houses are destroyed, those whose houses can be repaired also need attention. They also need help.

Houses that are moderately or lightly damaged usually require only limited repairs to become safe and habitable again, making this approach faster and more economical than concentrating resources on complete rebuilds. It is faster to bring people back from their temporary refuge; moreover, if they are given basic repairs, cleaning, and utility support, the need for temporary shelters will be dramatically reduced. 

Now, let us consider temporary shelters: in many parts of the world, collective shelters are common, with a single structure housing numerous families. These shelters often have only a partition separating each unit or family. According to research by The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in 2017, overcrowding, lack of privacy, and mixed sleeping arrangements in schools, halls, and tents increase the risk of harassment, assault, and exploitation, particularly at night. Studies from Indonesia and the Philippines after floods, typhoons, and earthquakes link harassment in temporary shelters to the absence of partitions and dedicated spaces for women and girls.

There are two options. Increase the space in temporary shelters by building as many shelters as families need or by reducing overcrowding. The first option will be very expensive because the infrastructure and its supporting systems must be built. It is also a waste of money, since the temporary shelters are temporary, which adds to the recovery pathways to permanent recovery. This happens because those whose houses were totally damaged are crowding into the refugee sites, along with those whose houses only need repairs. It is understandable that those whose houses are full of mud, which sometimes goes up to 50 cm, cannot live inside their houses. Therefore, it is an opportunity to help these people return home while reducing overcrowding in the refugee sites. 

For families whose homes have light or moderate damage, providing tools aligns with the "cleanup and restoration" phase. This should be done as early as possible, provided the market has resumed, the area is accessible and safe from future disasters, and full reconstruction has not yet begun. In flood-affected areas, such as Sumatra, where floods occurred in November 2025, tools like shovels, hoes, hammers, and saws are essential for this early stage. 

There is evidence that providing shelter kits not only accelerates recovery but also serves as a form of psychosocial intervention. There is a strong link between damaged, dirty, unusable homes and psychological distress, including anxiety, worry, and helplessness. Early support to restore basic household functioning, including cleaning and simple repairs, contributes to mental health recovery. A 2019 qualitative study of residential flooding in Canada reports that residents expended “a lot of physical energy” trying to protect and then clean their homes, describing the period as “very difficult and stressful,” marked by exhaustion, lack of sleep, and ongoing worry over losses and repairs. The report notes that cleanup was an urgent, stress‑intensive race that left many already “physically and mentally exhausted.” Therefore, providing these shelter kits accelerates the return to a functioning, dignified home, which is consistently associated with better mental health outcomes.

Aside from the benefits for individuals, distributing shelter kits will benefit their community. In a close-knit community, others can help, reflecting the spirit of solidarity. It will accelerate recovery not only for homes but also for other infrastructure beyond housing, such as livelihoods, as the market resumes, and for their health and education needs. 

Therefore, Habitat for Humanity Indonesia plans to distribute 1,000 shelter kit packages starting in mid-January 2026 to families in Sibolga City and Tapanuli Tengah District, both in North Sumatra Province, Indonesia. The floods that occurred last November affected 3 provinces, damaging almost 167,000 houses. With shelter kits, affected families can complete cleanup and begin house repairs. The intention is to help them continue their lives and restore their hope for full recovery in the coming months.

Arwin Soelaksono

Photo: Kevin Herbian 

 

Measuring success of housing recovery

Measuring success solely by the number of houses rebuilt can obscure the fact that people’s needs are more complex. In a post-disaster situation, the number of houses constructed is often seen as an achievement that the government or recovery agencies can be proud of. These agencies face pressure to report figures influenced by political considerations. The primary measure of accountability tends to be how quickly the recovery budget is spent, as reflected in the number of houses built. Frequently, news reports highlight the number of houses constructed, emphasizing the accomplishments of the government and housing agencies.

Actually, house construction should serve as a starting point for homeowners to improve their living conditions and increase income. Focusing only on building the house, other essential services like clean water, electricity, sanitation, and roads connecting clinics, schools, and livelihood areas are often overlooked. Recovery efforts require that all these elements are in place to ensure people have proper housing and better access to these services.

We, therefore, need to consider how we define the success of recovery. There are at least two ways to approach it. Success can be seen as meeting homeowners' needs and ensuring long-term sustainability. Neither of these indicators can be observed immediately during the government recovery phase. It might take 2 to 5 years after the recovery program ends. However, we can establish pathways toward genuine recovery.

Efforts to address the needs of affected individuals are evident in the response to the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami in Japan. There were a series of community consultations. Housing recovery advisors see this as a crucial step, emphasizing the importance of listening carefully to the needs and intentions of those impacted. Moving from emergency or temporary housing to reconstructed or repaired homes requires strong connections among residents. These connections can help accelerate recovery and ensure all codes and regulations are followed. Such initiatives can be fostered by building community cohesion during ongoing consultations and by encouraging resident involvement in recovery planning.

Community consultation is crucial not only after disasters but also in development projects. Habitat for Humanity Indonesia applies this approach at the beginning of slum upgrading in Tanjung Kait, Indonesia. It involves a series of consultations with various stakeholders: homeowners, local government, public works, government housing agencies, builders, building material vendors, and others. Through these efforts, 110 households received support to secure land legally and to build houses with proper public infrastructure. These homeowners will not only live in durable houses but also benefit from better access to health and livelihood resources.

The second approach to achieving success is ensuring sustainability. Therefore, the housing market ecosystem should be developed within the recovery pathways. Among these initiatives, the presence of skilled builders or contractors, wholesalers, and financial institutions is important. In reality, developing the ecosystem is often overlooked. People realize this when the houses are already built, and the recovery momentum has ended. It is a considerable loss.

Arwin Soelaksono

Photo: IStock CreativaImages

Shifting from recovery to resilience

Resilience in housing is more crucial than its recovery following a disaster. This contrasts the traditional mindset, which believes that post-disaster recovery is a massive shelter or housing work since significant funding is available. The more houses collapse following an earthquake, the more funding flows to the recovery efforts. This traditional perspective has solid evidence if we refer to housing recoveries following the Asian Tsunami (2004), the Haiti earthquake (2010), and the Nepal earthquake (2015). More news coverage on the affected people brought philanthropists and humanitarian workers together to collect funds and rebuild. 

In reality, working in recovery settings has its challenges. The heavily impacted market and public infrastructure make the recovery efforts considerably slow. Adding to this problem, national or local governments need to establish recovery policies or guidance to ensure a broad recovery, not only housing. There is a long process from recovery strategy development to its socialization and, later on, implementation. Even though all of these are in place, the flow might not be smooth. The market that provides construction materials and labor is not sufficient. The local businesses, which are expected to catalyze the reconstruction process, are still recovering their business. People also struggle to get loans since they lose their assets due to the disaster.

Resilience is working in a different approach. From a resilience perspective, the houses and public infrastructure might experience damage, but it is not fatal. Resilience means improving structural capacities and minimizing vulnerability. For instance, an earthquake, known as a natural hazard, is still a hazard that does not turn into a disaster since houses and public infrastructures are still safe and standing. No casualties and the local business is still running. Therefore, it is essential to invest in resilience. UNDRR report says investing in more resilient infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries yields USD 4 in benefit for each USD 1 invested.

But why are most people more interested in housing recovery rather than improving its resilience? Post-disaster recovery is driven by urgency, and there are business expectations for a large number of projects. While working for resilience is more about working with the community, continuous education for local builders and homeowners is key. These initiatives actually bring everyone to abide by the building code. In developing countries, there are some challenges, such as no legal sanction for anyone who does not follow the code when constructing their own houses. Hence, persuading people to seismically strengthen their houses isn't easy, even for their safety.

In the last decade, the focus has shifted from recovery to resilience. Therefore, shelter/housing and settlement practitioners launched a campaign on seismic retrofitting. This effort needs support from the government and business entities to make it more massive. It is a long marathon to convince people to change their priorities, such as having a safe house, which is much more important than having a beautiful house.

Arwin Soelaksono

Photo: Twitter @FXMC1957

#Tsunami20 | The essential role of women in disaster response

Minimizing corruption risks in housing recovery post-disaster

Shelter assistance and housing recovery post-disaster always face a high risk of corruption. From the disaster itself, higher levels of corruption resulted in an even larger number of deaths from disasters caused by natural hazards, especially in developing countries. (Cevik, 2023). The severity of disasters is a consequence of corruption, but the opportunities for corruption also increase in post-disaster situations. (Calossi, 2012). As shelter and housing are urgently needed following a disaster, urgency breeds corruption opportunities. (Sorensen, 2018). In this situation, governments, aid agencies, and affected people are prone to fall into various spectrums of corruption.

Hence, shelter and housing assistance should be adequately provided, even in urgent situations. Initiatives to curb the risk of corruption still exist amid challenging circumstances. To begin with, transparency through the broad engagement and participation of societies. Before shelter assistance is given to the community, the terms of modality, goods, and services must be communicated to all stakeholders. This ensures a shared responsibility to ensure fairness and quality of assistance. Everyone will know the amount of support, type of assistance, and its limitations. The assistance will have no hidden items since every aspect, including costs and goods grade, is mentioned publicly. For instance, if support uses cash assistance, everyone will know how much money is donated. If support is given using vouchers to purchase construction materials, there will be fair competition amongst local hardware stores.

Another crucial aspect is capacity building for local government, NGOs, construction actors, and homeowners. They should know that shelter assistance and housing recovery support can be provided using various construction materials and methodologies. During recovery efforts, big construction or supplier companies are often attracted to join. However, by developing their capacities, we can ensure that no one can dictate to them to use a particular material or method as endorsed by parties that try to sell goods and services for big profit. Abiding by the building code is also part of developing capacities to ensure there will be building back safer, no matter the construction material or methodologies they choose. Hence, government and aid agencies should deploy their engineers, architects, and skilled builders to conduct training and quality monitoring.

Lastly, there should be a safe complaint mechanism. Delivering substandard quality goods and services is expected to happen. The risk is higher if aid agencies or housing actors deliver large-scale assistance. The voices of unsatisfied beneficiaries may be unheard due to the big celebration of handover ceremonies. There should be experts to follow up on complaints and judge the issue reasonably to ensure the recovery efforts are on track.

All of these factors can put the corruption risks at a minimum.

Arwin Soelaksono

Photo: Faruk Tokluoğlu - https://www.pexels.com/photo/shocked-woman-in-fur-standing-among-ruins-16105715/

Flexible housing recovery program to ensure robustness and sustainability

 

Every post-disaster housing recovery process is susceptible to disruption. Rather than striving for a disruption-proof recovery program, it is more realistic to prepare for various approaches. Construction techniques, methods, and partners can be altered; the only constant is the mission to assist affected individuals in rebuilding safer homes. Given the inevitability of disruption, the key to smooth implementation lies in flexibility. The success of flexible recovery programs hinges on the recovery actor's knowledge, experiences, and networks. 

Those with field experience may be aware of problems that may cause disruption. The issues that usually exist are construction material and builders scarcity, leading to severe local inflation. Moreover, following a disaster event, there would be public infrastructure damages such as collapsed bridges, roadblocks due to landslides, or disrupted public services such as malfunctioning banking systems. Also, sometimes, we must wait for the issuance of the government policy on recovery. More problems may pop up during the process, which needs to be anticipated and prepared for. 

Prior to the program's initiation, it is crucial to adopt a proactive stance and prepare for the worst-case scenario. This includes developing additional programs to run parallel to the housing recovery program, such as strategies to mitigate inflation due to resource scarcity. One viable option is to provide construction materials and skilled builders through a livelihood program. Training local builders and house owners so that they can rebuild by themselves is one of the most effective ways to ensure human resources availability. Implementing a livelihood program that produces and supplies construction material locally, such as making concrete blocks or compressed stabilized earth blocks, can anticipate brick scarcity during the massive reconstruction period.

Additionally, recycling facilities can produce structural elements from salvaged material. These initiatives should be managed by partners and run by a livelihood program. Therefore, it is crucial to involve non-housing agencies as recovery partners as early as possible.

As the local government will spearhead and bear the responsibility for the recovery, it is essential to advocate for their involvement from the outset. Recovery agents are not equipped to address all issues, such as revitalizing public infrastructures, land and property disputes, and, most importantly, supporting the most vulnerable. Every disaster will expose underlying issues within the community. For instance, land boundaries become unclear due to landslides or liquefaction. Hence, there is a need to resolve all land ownership.

Hence, before the program starts, we should have various approaches, modalities, #construction techniques, and partners to ensure robust housing recovery and sustainability. The local communities should be able to continue even after the recovery program ends.

Arwin Soelaksono

Photo credit: Republika. https://news.republika.co.id/berita/rlr5um377/gempa-di-cianjur-dapat-terjadi-lagi-tiap-20-tahun-sekali#google_vignette