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