Choosing the most appropriate approach and modality on housing recovery post-disaster

There are various approaches on supporting affected people to recover from disaster. Some organizations and also governments have specific approaches that they will apply as policies or strategies to support housing recovery. They use similar approach in almost every recovery since they have experience with it in the previous interventions. Governments and organizations introduced slogans as mantra of post-disaster reconstruction program. The most famous reconstruction slogan is Build Back Better[i], which was introduced in 2006 during the Asian tsunami recovery.[ii] Later on, Building Back Safer has been proposed as an alternative as “safer” provides a clearer goal for post-disaster reconstruction.[iii] During this decade there were another slogan which intended to encourage more environment friendly, faster, stronger, and more equitable.[iv] Each slogan will have its own approach. But the most important aspect is which approach will be best for the community to be easily understood and applied on their self-recovery.

This writing is intended to share my learning and my experience on supporting the disaster affected people to rebuild their houses. With appropriate approach and modality, and proper strategy, owner-driven housing recovery is achievable. Even there will be challenges along the process, there are various options to fit the activities with the situations to ensure the achievement are within the planned timeframe.

Expectation on better housing recovery

Many people perceived that housing reconstruction as the opportunity to improve public housing. People can have robust structure to withstand disasters such as earthquake and typhoon. Enhancement of health and livelihood always to be expected to have the same direction with improvement of housing.

As massive housing recovery will need extensive construction material. For instance, on Aceh post-tsunami reconstruction, around 1.72 billion high quality red bricks were needed[v]. There was environmental concerns about timber use in brick production. During 2005-2006 at least 266,000 hectare of Aceh forest was deforested since the wood was used as construction material and brick production.[vi] Ideally, the recovery should achieve greening housing ecosystem to reduce greenhouse gases. The aim, each house should be a building that has 20% less energy, water, and material consumption.[vii]

From political side, many governments want to have faster recovery. The delayed reconstruction process might bring issues on local political stability. On the other hand, from the socio-economic perspective, reconstruction is the opportunity to have more equitable community. Those who are  most vulnerable can have same assistance as those who are more resourceful on participating in the recovery.

There are many expectations for better outcome of the housing recovery. From all of those mentioned above, the overarching idea is to prevent re-creating or exacerbating pre-disaster vulnerabilities in the process of reconstruction.[viii] But on the implementation side, it is enormous for the affected people to cover all aspects. On the other hand, if all aspects have to be fulfilled by the government or by the recovery agencies, it will create dependencies and diminish the owner-driven recovery initiatives. Moreover, due to budget constraint, only small number of affected people can receive the assistance. The bigger part of the community will be left behind without support.

Choosing the approach and modality

From the housing recovery experience within a period of two decades the evidence shows the top-down approach turn to be less successful compared to the otherwise. For instance, from the Aceh post-tsunami housing recovery. Even the program has huge budget USD 7.7 billion, which was the biggest funding ever committed for the relief effort,[ix] the community ownership was less compared to other recovery program. In Yogyakarta, following the earthquake 2006, the community shared their responsibility and initiative with the recovery agencies on building back their houses. The result was they took the ownership and responsibilities ensuring their houses will be built following the standard.

Shifting the top-down approach to the people centered housing recovery can be done if we endorse the rights of the affected people as the basis of recovery initiative. It is their life, their house, and their future that they will decide on how to recover. Government, humanitarian organizations are present to fill the gap on their capacity. Even those people are affected by the disaster which caused substantial loss on their assets, they still have coping mechanism. In their survival mode they still have self-recover capacity, even it could be small.

Then, considering their low capacity on self-recover but we need to respect their rights on the process, what would be the most suitable approach and modality for intervention?

Using Build Back Better (BBB) as the approach might overwhelmed them during the process. Therefore, government and shelter agencies need to use approach that might fit with their condition. Then, it leaves the Build Back Safer (BBS) should be promoted to the houseowners. With BBS approach, the houseowner has the responsibility to ensure that they will have robust and safer houses.

Most of houseowners are construction layman. They have no idea on putting foundation, laying bricks and construct an earthquake resistance house. But, with proper guidance and oversight, the houseowners and their builders can build houses that withstand disaster.

Aside from engineering capacity, they also have financial issues. As they have considerable loss of assets and might also loss their livelihood, they have not enough resource to finance the reconstruction. Then how to enable them to kick-start the construction and then complete it but at the same time, the supporting agencies still respect their rights? By giving cash as part of the construction cost. The houseowner will have the authority on how to spend the money if they committed to complete their houses according to standard. This modality called Cash Transfer Programming (CTP) combined with Technical Assistance.

Then, is the BBB become obsolete and this approach find no place in reconstruction? No. The BBB is still an essential approach, but it is not on the sphere of the affected people. The BBB should be reflected in the government and humanitarian and development agencies’ recovery program. The aspects of BBB will create the enabling factors that the recovery which done by the construction market will be successful.

Therefore, both approaches, BBB and BBS are essential in housing recovery. Both are different by concept but seeing through the details, it is obvious those two are complemented to each other. BBS is the micro part of people centered housing recovery. It is more on field level implementation on supporting the houseowners. BBB is more on larger area intervention by government policy and NGOs to offer more comprehensive solutions but all are complement to the micro part. Below are the details.

Empowering the community on Build Back Safer

Recovery effort should be understood by the affected people, and it should within reach of them.  All intervention given to the affected people should be focused on how to strengthen their capacity as individual and also their community. Since all parties need to respect their rights on self-recovery the intervention should be people centered housing recovery. All interventions with dictating construction products or house design should be avoided. In people-centered housing recovery should be characterized by housing design and form that meet people's needs; genuine participation of empowered residents in decision-making and construction; and holistic policies accountable to all residents.[x]

Construction training for women who are the houseowners prior the construction starts.

On the BBS approach the first step is by building the capacity of builders and the homeowners. They need to be trained on how to build robust house. This training will be the opportunity to change the poor construction practices which done by the builders for many years which result to vulnerable houses. The training should be inclusive to the whole community since community marginalisation from reconstruction exacerbates local vulnerabilities and associated disaster risks and impacts.[xi]

Diagram of Ecosystem of Safer Housing Recovery with CTP Support

From the diagram above showing how community capacity can be developed and strengthened. The inner circle is the community capacity. The capacity can be formed from Household number 1 (HH1), started to build the house, they gone through the construction process and then they made it finishing the house. Learned from their neighbour, Household number 2 (HH2) also start the house and completed the house. Then the work continues to Household number 3 (HH3) then continues to the whole community.  Inspired by their neighbours the demand of owner-driven getting stronger. It is like a growing spiral, more households participating in reconstruction which, also means the community capacity is increased.

But, the demand would stuck if there is no growing supply available. Then, what are the components of supply? Those are builders, construction material and service providers.

To begin with the builders. Builders are those who are trained and have sufficient skills to build robust house. Builders become an issue if they persistent on using their old construction practices which result to house damage due to earthquake. Another issue if their number is not sufficient compare to the demand of reconstruction. By deliver training to the homeowners prior the construction starts, it gives knowledge and confident to the homeowner on monitoring the quality of builders workmanship.

Then, construction material. Construction material should always available locally and sufficiently and in good quality. If it is insufficient, mostly during the peak of recovery, their price would become very expensive due to inflation.  Many of shelter agencies cannot provide materials but the organizations can collaborate with other NGOs to manage supply chain. The homeowners will have stabilized price and will have sufficient construction material to complete their houses.

Lastly is on the supply part is the service providers. It is those who can deliver the cash directly to the homeowners.  It can be bank, local cooperative, post-office, electronic wallet as long as their service can accommodate the need of the homeowners.

Those 3, the builders, construction material and the service providers are the supply. Combination of both Supply and Demand we call it as market.

The market should grow, since there will be many beneficiaries to be supported. It can be hundreds or thousands depend on the magnitude of the disaster and the vulnerability of houses in that area. The market is just like an organism which need supportive environment to live and to make it stronger and bigger. As a shelter and settlement practitioner our call is to ensure that our strategy can strengthen the market.

What are the element of supportive environment or enabling factors? Firstly, it is the technical assistance as can be seen in the diagram. Shelter agencies have to have a good engineering team to serve owner driven recovery. If the number of beneficiaries are thousand, let us say more than 3,000 beneficiaries meant that we are potentially would have 1,000 to almost 2,000 of house design. Since everyone and everything is unique. Also, the engineers have to support on the Budget Calculation. They have to monitor and oversight the process since the recovery will be done by the homeowners and their builders. It is a tough job to ensure quality and at the same time changing bad practices in the field.

Secondly, the project management support. Shown at the diagram at the right-bottom. It would not be sufficient on just providing technical assistance. It should be combined with the project management support. S-Curve as a tool for planning and monitoring would be helpful in this process. Based on our S-Curve we can tell our finance team, how much money they need to prepare for next month disbursement or for the next quarter. Also how many engineers and social mobilizers should be deployed. Proper project management support will ensure we can build and maintain the momentum. The nature of housing recovery always needs momentum otherwise every disruption will flatten the curve. More on the S-Curve as a tool for managing humanitarian construction. Click here 

On the diagram, the top-right is the Government Policy. The policy should be clear from the very beginning. Also, should be doable in the field. Both unclear and impractical policy will put the progress on-hold. This will be a huge impede, once the construction process stopped it would be costly to resume. Another important policy which usually expected by beneficiaries and shelter agencies in the field is the policy on addressing the most vulnerable. More on policy on supporting the most vulnerable. Click here

Lastly is on the diagram are the donor or CSR program or financial institution. It is expected that they would be flexible and more adaptive to field situation. Their flexibility is needed since not all aspects are covered during the planning. For instance, political situation and other disaster occurred in the area which might need change of program which affect the timeframe and the budget.

More comprehensive intervention from Area-based Approach of Build Back Better

The good thing on construction work is most of the activities will boost economic growth. Not only in the area where construction take place but also surrounding area which have resources to support the construction. For instance, construction material providers whether it is manufactured or taken from the quarry. As long as the transportation allows, the multiplier effects can deliver benefit to broader community.

On the other hand, the construction process might be harmful to the environment. For instance, the impact to the waste and deforestation. For shelter agencies this situation is more than they could handle. As UCLG note it, the current humanitarian architecture is built around sector-specific planning and short-term funding and program cycles. This is not appropriate in the highly complex and dynamic environments witnessed in urban crises, where humanitarian best practices point instead to holistic, longer term action and higher levels of engagement with sub-national actors.[xii]

Example on attempting to achieve greener recovery, in Nepal following the 2015 earthquake, an NGO, Build Up Nepal, set up a Compressed Stabilized Earth Bricks (CSEB)[xiii] factory which material can be used by the community to rebuild their houses. Since the factory located nearby to the area of reconstruction, the community will have the material with more affordable prices. The material itself is more environmental friendly compare to the red brick. More decisive on protecting the environment, other NGO or entrepreneur would set up construction material made from plastic waste.

On the utilities, local government might have to join forces with NGOs on clean water provision. The problem which usually occur on the reconstruction in the relocation area. Or in the area which water distribution affected by the disaster.

All of those need to be solved through coordination in area-based approach. The interaction should lead by the local government, to have coordinated effort with the whole stakeholders within the area. Local government will play as the key-role on the success of the recovery. On area-based approach, it is recognized that successful improvements rely on people-centered approaches that take time and involve negotiation with local governance structures.[xiv]

If all stakeholders committed to deliver assistances that will be plenty of opportunities to explore. Every stakeholders know their positions and whether the approach is BBB or BBS, each stakeholder can fit in to their role on supporting the community. It means all actors are collaborating to deliver more comprehensive solution to the community in the area.  And it will multiply the impact of enabling factors that might strengthen the market and improve the quality of owner-driven recovery.  

Arwin Soelaksono

---

[i] Build Back Better (BBB): The use of the recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction phases after a disaster to increase the resilience of nations and communities through integrating disaster risk reduction measures into the restoration of physical infrastructure and societal systems, and into the revitalization of livelihoods, economies, and the environment (United Nations General Assembly, 2016 ).

[ii] Fernandez, Glenn. Ahmed, Iftekhar. “Build back better” approach to disaster recovery: Research trends since 2006. 2019

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] UNDP. Construction Boom Analysis Pilot analysis for bricks Banda Aceh (Jan 2006)

[vi] https://kemendesa.go.id/berita/view/detil/259/266000-hektare-hutan-aceh-rusak-selama-2005-2006

[vii] Harrison, Dao. Balancing Public and Private Sector Engagement in Housing Sector to Boost Economic Growth. World Bank at Indonesia Housing Forum. 2021

[viii] Fernandez, Glenn. Ahmed, Iftekhar. “Build back better” approach to disaster recovery: Research trends since 2006. 2019

[ix] Jock McKeon, “Aceh Reconstruction Expenditure Update June 2007 data” The World Bank, November 2007

[x] Fernandez, Glenn. Ahmed, Iftekhar. “Build back better” approach to disaster recovery: Research trends since 2006. 2019

[xi] Imperiale, Angelo Jonas. Vanclay, Frank. Top-down Reconstruction and the failure to “build back better” resilient communities after disaster: lessons from the 2009 L’Aquila Italy earthquake. 2020.

[xii] IMPACT and UCLG , Consultations on humanitarian responses in urban areas: perspectives from cities in crisis, page 10. 2016

[xiii] https://www.buildupnepal.com/interlocking-bricks/

[xiv] Sanderson, David. Implementing area-based approaches (ABAs) in urban post-disaster contexts. 2017.

Community Based Seismic Retrofitting Program for Disaster Risk Reduction

Seismic retrofitting improves community resilience on housing. Even it is smaller activities compare to the post-disaster reconstruction. It is still workable even during Covid-19 pandemic on reducing earthquake risk on densely populated houses. This writing is based on retrofitting program implemented by Indonesian Red Cross and supported by the American Red Cross and Build Change, and funded by USAID. The program takes place in Indonesia at a city and at a sub-district which are located at earthquake prone area.

Many houses were poorly built in the earthquake prone area; therefore, they are in vulnerable state. Homeowners might not realize that they are at risk until earthquake with certain magnitude occurs. Their houses might collapse or might have significant damage. Therefore, these houses need to be seismically strengthened as a disaster risk reduction measure. In densely populated community this initiative become more crucial since large-scale houses might collapse if earthquake occur. Moreover, the debris might block their narrow evacuation route. Even retrofitting is less expensive compared to the rebuilding cost, but due to unavailability of funding more people reluctant to retrofit their houses.  During the program implementation, several initiatives have been taken to promote seismic retrofitting and strengthened with the community engagement initiatives. All of these are to create retrofitting demand at community level.

Seismic retrofitting and disaster risk reduction

Photo: Retrofitting with conventional method

Seismic retrofitting is to modify the existing structures to make them more resistant to the seismic activity due to the earthquakes. After the retrofitting, the structure could be damaged by the earthquake at certain elements such as beams but must not catastrophically collapse. Retrofitted house might prevent sudden failure which might cause its dwellers get injured. Seismic retrofitting can be done either in recovery or in preparedness setting. But to carry it out under homeowners’ initiative on preparedness setting is bit difficult compare on post-disaster recovery. During recovery process the house owners have the urgency to repair and retrofit their houses. On the other hand, without disaster occurrence homeowners tend to put retrofitting below other priorities.

There are similarities whether it is in recovery context and preparedness setting. Retrofitting is intended not to demolish the house but to strengthen it. It is the cost, to begin with. Cost-benefit assessment is used to evaluate the effectiveness of various seismic retrofit strategies to address concerns about earthquake safety and damage to older concrete frame buildings. When houses evaluated on the basis of repair costs only, the maximum cost of retrofit measures that offer a positive rate of return is 10% to 30% of the building replacement value.[i] Secondly, retrofit need skilled masons and under experienced technical person supervision. It is because seismic retrofitting need’s structure evaluation to check its vulnerability, design and then the construction work itself.

Since the cost is less than to construct from foundation to the roof, retrofitting can be implemented in every economic situation. During economic slowdown, retrofitting provides important contribution to the local economy. The construction work will provide job for builders and workers from other related sectors. Even it is a small-scale activity compared to the common construction work, the construction process needs inputs from other industries and production factors. This could generate considerable employment through multiplier effects.[ii] But its impact on the economy still depends on the volume of the retrofitting work within the area. The bigger the demand it will bring more resources and increase in economic activities. Moreover, the retrofitting cost might even less than 30%, if the activities reach economies of scale.

Naturally construction works always need time to reach the pace and amount of work of economies of scale. Surely kickstart always not easy and simple. It needs preparation such as training for builders, construction material provision, structure assessment and lastly homeowner confidence on retrofitting. Therefore, to ensure the retrofitting program can be implemented those for aspects should be prepared. In this writing, as it will be focused on the community engagement.

Challenges on proper construction and retrofitting

In every country the Government issued Building Codes that the people need to follow to ensure that they can have robust and earthquake resistant structure. The code also available for structural elements such as beam, column and foundation. The code also expected to be a guidance for design and prerequisite to get building permit. But the challenge is on the compliance. In the developing world, the compliance mostly only happens at multi story buildings not at one or two story landed houses. The situation even more challenging in the rural since the monitoring for compliance and enforcement is quite rare. In most countries, house builders or masons do not think that they are responsible for the vulnerability or collapse of the houses they constructed[iii].

Photo: Brick gabble wall without concrete frame

In rural area construction practices are far different from the code. The builders are confident about the safety of the houses which they constructed although most of builders do not know the building codes[iv]. For instance, in a village in in Sukabumi, West Java, Indonesia the houses have no columns. The builders laid the brick at the stretcher face not at their bed. Besides of the ignorance of the codes, people done this because they want to save money by putting less brick. Another example is how the homeowners and builders construct brick gable wall. Since concrete structure is being considered costly, the builders constructed it without concrete frame which make their houses are quite vulnerable when the earthquake occur. The risks are when the earthquake occurs, the brick gable wall might fall off. Surely it can endanger the house owner since it is catastrophic.

Ignorance of the Building Codes is the first barrier to have safe structure. The next barrier is the economic cost of retrofitting. Currently, retrofitting is at the supply driven rather than demand driven as homeowners are heavily dependent on grant or financial incentives. homeowners are unwilling to invest in their house as the house is not a source of income for them and seismic safety is not a priority for them.[v]

If the people are willing put themselves at risks by putting no column at the wall it will be difficult to persuade them to retrofit their house. Some people put the retrofitting at lower priorities then other needs, even though they received the information on earthquake risks. Earthquake is not always occurred regularly like flooding which has seasonal occurrence. People easily forgotten. Even if people have sufficient money, they want to enlarge the houses or just put new paint in their houses.

Another challenge on retrofitting is unavailability skilled builders and proper construction material which need to be used in retrofitting. This can be easily understood since retrofitting is not common in the area therefore it is difficult to find builders which have retrofitting skills. Also, if most of the houses in the area were built without following the Building Code, then it is difficult to find construction material as directed in the code, for instance on using steel deformed rebar. Steel deformed rebar is prerequisite for earthquake resistance reinforced concrete structure. In those area, the demand for deformed rebar is less than the smooth rebar, hence the deformed rebar become expensive.

Creating the demand for retrofitting

Provision of skilled builders and retrofitting material is directly proportional to the demand for retrofitting. The more people want to retrofit their houses the more builders come and work in the area. New builders will be introduced to the retrofitting technique by the skilled builders, as they will work as an intern. More construction material will be available due to the needs of ongoing retrofitting work. Then how to increase the retrofitting demand?

Photo: Retrofitted house using Ferrocement technique which developed by Dr. Teddy Boen

The recent development, many retrofit strategies are feasible and several traditional and innovative options are available to engineers[vi]. There are research and studies on retrofitting which can be implemented on using available material and with affordable price. For instance, ferrocement[vii] technique which developed by Dr. Teddy Boen, can be implemented with simple technique and at an affordable cost. And depends on the needs, homeowners also have the option on choosing conventional method by adding seismic resistance attribute to particular structural element.

Other than the engineering approaches is the encouragement with social language using the positive messages, i.e. homeowners are crucial to be convinced that the investment in safer housing will eventually prove to be worthwhile.[viii] On the other hand from the negative messages, it is also important to increase disaster imagination of the people to understand the importance of seismic retrofit of weaker houses that is the main cause of casualty and to create some social systems by which homeowners are encouraged to retrofit their own weaker houses by themselves.[ix] These initiatives should carried out by trained community volunteers.[x]

Other initiatives to create demand is through connecting the people with the banking institution. Some of banks have financial loan for house renovation but they do not have loan for retrofitting. The bank has been approached and currently is calculating the potential market and benefit of the loan program.

Currently Indonesian Red Cross is developing strategic level collaboration with the Public Works and Housing, to re-shape the government program. It is expected that the current house renovation program which funded by government can be changed to house retrofitting. More retrofitted houses also mean more training opportunity for the builders.

Photo: Training of community volunteers to equipped them on their role as Retrofitting Agents. 

Another campaign done by the trained community volunteers who are using the retrofitted houses as retrofitting showcase. People invited to visit the houses, discuss with the homeowners and trained community volunteers. This campaign was launched to create bandwagon effect in the community. The Community Volunteers acted as Retrofitting Agent visited homeowners door-to-door sending the messages of retrofitting. 

Still, more effort needs to be made. Supply chain is one important area need to be developed. The need of affordable construction and retrofitting material such as deformed bar, wire mesh, Polypropylene (PP) bands or fiber-reinforced paint should be available in local shop. At the end it will reduce the cost.

Collaboration with other humanitarian organization program, such as livelihood and others, need to be developed. Improved quality of living of the society will increase homeowners’ capacities and then at the end they may retrofit their houses.

All of these should be seen as approaches which can strengthen the community effort, since the retrofitting awareness should be a bottom-up initiatives. Homeowners who eventually aware on earthquake risk reduction should be able to connect with available retrofitting resources. Then at the end the retrofitting can be implemented and initiated by the community.

 Arwin Soelaksono

---

[i] Liel, Abbie & Deierlein, Gregory. (2013). Cost-Benefit Evaluation of Seismic Risk Mitigation Alternatives for Older Concrete Frame Buildings. Earthquake Spectra. 29. 1391-1411. 10.1193/030911EQS040M.

[ii] Wibowo, M. Agung. The Contribution of The Construction Industry to the Economy of Indonesia: A Systemic Approach (2009)

[iii] Okazaki, K and T. Saito.   Seismic Risk Perception Concerning Non-engineered Houses (2012)

[iv] ibid.

[v] Build Change, 2019.

[vi] Zerbin, Matteo . et. al. Sustainable retrofit design of RC frames evaluated for different seismic demand (2015)

[vii] Boen, Teddy. Retrofit Bangunan Yang Rusak Akibat Gempa , 2015, 2019 https://www.teddyboen.com/Retrofit_Bangunan_yang_Rusak_akibat_Gempa.html

[viii] Okazaki, Kenji et. al. Study on willingness of the residents in seismic retrofitting of the house - comparison among Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Turkey, The Philippines, Fiji, and Japan

[ix] Sathiparan, Navaratnarajah. Mesh type seismic retrofitting for masonry structures: critical issues and possible strategies. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering. Volume 19, 2015

[x] In Indonesian Red Cross (PMI) program, supported by the American Red Cross and Build Change and funded by the USAID, the trained community volunteers (known as Community Based Action Team) acted as Retrofitting Agents. They have been trained how to spot vulnerabilities, provide retrofitting option and solution including calculating retrofitting budget. On their role the Retrofitting Agents are equipped by Retrofitting field guide the help them during house visits and encourage their neighbors to retrofit their houses.

Improving post-disaster housing reconstruction based on Nepal recovery S-curve

S-curve is commonly used in construction project management tool for planning the work and its milestone and monitoring its progress. S-curve already proven as powerful tool whether in sophisticated construction work also for humanitarian works in rural and remote places. This article offers insight on how post-disaster housing recovery can be improved. It can also be applied in other regions who promote housing recovery with owner-driven setting.