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

Post-disaster Housing Reconstruction and Climate Crisis

Tackling the climate crisis in post-disaster housing recovery is still an extra mile that must be pursued. Nowadays, the more significant part of reconstruction for resilience is the effort to abide by the building code. At the same time, climate impacts are felt in unprecedented wildfires, floods, storms, and droughts worldwide, to which housing recovery has contributed. For instance, during Aceh, Indonesia's post-tsunami reconstruction, the construction materials were dominated by mass-produced industrialized materials, dramatically increasing CO2 emissions, mainly due to the massive use of reinforced concrete, concrete blocks, brick, and steel. (O’Brien et al. 2008). Developed countries also have similar challenges, and with more advanced technologies, the post-disaster reconstruction work in the disaster areas of these countries will emit significant CO2 emissions (Dou, Y. et al. 2022). In short, there is always additional carbon emission in every reconstruction in addition to the housing construction in the development setting. 

Several reasons may impede the reduction of carbon emissions during the housing recovery. Using imported construction materials, usually from mass production, will impact carbon emissions. This condition happens if housing assistance is delivered as a product. The housing actors already have a solution even though the disaster has not occurred yet. They match the housing product with the typical disaster. For instance, contractors are deployed to install modular structures following an earthquake. They might know that using these construction materials and transporting them to the affected areas may increase carbon emissions.  But the need to swiftly rebuild made them take this option.

Another option is housing assistance, a process done by the affected people and supported by the government or aid organizations. These initiatives must enhance local market capacities and its system, i.e., improvement of builders’ skills and availability of proper construction materials. This approach might fail if housing actors cannot provide adequate technical and project management assistance. Moreover, reconstruction agencies must ensure access to complement the reconstruction activities, such as job creation, health, and education facilities. 

Both approaches, whether delivering housing solutions as a product or through a process, still need to improve in reducing carbon emissions. Providing solution as a product might have a rigid system to change due to mass production, and its installation technology is challenging to change. While reconstruction through a process, the cost becomes sensitive due to more initiatives on self-recovery to reduce carbon emissions, which means new construction material or technology should be adopted. However, there is still room to introduce climate-friendly reconstruction through the process since it is a more flexible approach. Therefore, more research is needed to enable self-recovery by adopting climate resilience initiatives in any region. More financial subsidies are also required so that every household can access more affordable low-carbon emissions products and technologies.

Arwin Soelaksono

Photo: Liputan6.com

Two mainstreams in housing recovery post-disaster

There are two mainstreams on the housing recovery post-disaster as policymakers and aid agencies see when they support the affected people. The first approach is delivering assistance with the house as a product. Since contractors built it for the affected people, with uniform design and the same construction material, sometimes with modular elements, homeowners will receive it as a turn-key project. It is a quick intervention as people need to return to their houses badly. 

The second approach is through a process that involves a series of consultations among related stakeholders. It is longer compared to the first approach. The house design, construction material, and methodology depend on the local capacities and availability. However, this writing expresses that the second approach, i.e., the through process, is more strategic to achieve sustainable recovery, not only building back houses but also improving access to well-being and livelihood.

But why is delivering houses as products still popular? This approach is more favorable from a socio-political perspective due to less room for political tension from political parties whose constituents are in temporary shelters. Construction companies and vendors producing modular structural elements are happy since they can benefit from this reconstruction. But from the beneficiaries' perspective, there are several issues. Various sizes of family members can not be fit with a single house design. A two-room house can only fit a family with one child. If they want to expand the house, they have small capabilities to construct since they have yet to participate in the construction. Moreover, the materials used to build their houses might be available in something other than local hardware stores. Hence, it is an issue of sustainability both for expansion and maintenance.

Common questions asked by those who prefer delivering houses as a product, i.e., what kind of house is suitable for a particular disaster? What kind of construction material and system can be provided quickly? Then, they will deliver construction materials, systems, and contractors to build the houses. All of those are standard norms to be applied in their recovery strategy.

On the other hand, those who are inclined toward the process approach will ask about the local capacities and resources available. They aim to improve the local market - builders and hardware stores - and maximize the use of available material. Hence, when they think about house design and how to build, they will follow the reality in the field. Similar to practices in the development context, enhancing local builders needs proper training. It needs supply chain interventions so local hardware stores can sell appropriate construction materials. Improving access becomes essential since it is not only for construction materials but also for other aspects such as livelihood. The strategy is developed based on how homeowners and their builders can build houses and abide by the code. Even if it is not a swift rebuild, the local capacities can grow and become embedded naturally. Since the approach is a process, the current condition becomes a solid foundation for connecting to the larger market and services in the future.

Besides sustainability, the process approach can be linked to future disaster resilience. Genuine resilience is not grafted by quick-fix intervention but needs changes from within, i.e., improvement of local capacities surrounded by an adequate ecosystem for recovery.

Arwin Soelaksono

Photo: IG @tatansyuf  https://bit.ly/3Gcdof3.
 

 

Creating an ecosystem that enables acceleration of housing self-recovery in the post-disaster context

My paper on " Creating an ecosystem that enables acceleration of housing self-recovery in the post-disaster context " has been published in the latest AIWEST-DR 2023 proceedings in the E3S Web of Conferences. You can download it for free using this link: click here 

Abstract

During reconstruction, the recovery actors might overlook the connections between external and internal push factors. These factors can positively impact the processes to accelerate and produce long-term benefits beyond construction. Consequently, the ecosystem which should strengthen the self-recovery initiatives cannot be formed. Whereas, inside the ecosystem, the function of the market can be amplified by government policies and strategies. External push, such as using contractor companies and imposing deadlines, can speed up the reconstruction but will have problems both in sustainability and inclusivity. Government or aid agencies might set deadlines for the reconstruction program. It might happen if all support systems are in place. A deadline is inevitable since the recovery program might be ended due to program closure. Expecting that imposing the deadline will accelerate the process will only be partially effective.

On the other hand, applying the push factors needs to pay attention to the nature of the genuine housing recovery, i.e., self-recovery initiatives and local market capacities. Hence, those initiatives and capabilities should be strengthened by internal push. The capacities of the market actors, which are the architects, engineers, builders, hardware stores, and even homeowners, should be strengthened to meet the demand for massive reconstruction. The data for this research was collected through field observations to interview the market actors, government officers, and other recovery actors, such as service providers and aid organizations. The data was analyzed by referring to the relevant academic and grey literature to find the relation of actors' capacities with timelines and the quality of houses constructed.

Arwin Soelaksono

Keywords:

Housing recovery, reconstruction, self-recovery, post-disaster, construction market.

Investing in humanitarian-development nexus

There is a gap that could impede housing recovery post-disaster, i.e., the absence of the practical application of relief-development continuum principles. Meanwhile, strengthening the humanitarian-development nexus was identified as a top priority at the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit, but the implementation is complex. It started with the nature of funding and the traditional practices; there is a distinction between humanitarian action and development aid, which results in different time frames and modalities. In the housing post-disaster context, humanitarian aid should provide shelter assistance soon after the disaster. On the other hand, Build Back Better, which includes delivering access to better living such as health, education, and livelihood, needs development aid. Hence, the nexus is essential to establish a transition or overlap between the delivery of humanitarian assistance and the provision of long-term development assistance.

In many cases, agencies, with their resources and expertise in humanitarian, are supporting the affected people and local authorities with temporary shelter or other non-food items. Meanwhile, other institutions that are experts on permanent housing are preparing their assistance, which will commence when the recovery period starts. So, the gap seen by the affected people as other agencies just finished their support while they have to wait for further assistance for long-term recovery will resume at a specific time. This gap should be eliminated if there is a clear pathway connecting humanitarian assistance and development support. It is OK if some agencies have their mandate only to support temporary assistance or others only support housing in the development context. The issue is the gap.

From the construction perspective, the transition from temporary shelter to permanent housing should not be disrupted. Establishing the construction market and its supply chain should be started before the recovery period. During recovery, the provision of construction materials, builders, engineers, and architects should be available sufficiently. As proven in many recovery programs, it takes considerable time to prepare all of these since there is no guarantee that those items and resources are already available in the affected area. The ecosystem that enables those items and resources to enlarge along the growing demand for reconstruction should be prepared. For instance, if the affected area is remote, rural, and far from development, good quality of construction materials and builders becomes a big issue. 

This initiative has both positive and negative sides. The negative is that the donors, local authorities, and agencies are unfamiliar with where to put this assistance because it is not relief or development. Some might see this as development assistance, but it will be implemented in the relief period. Also, it won't be easy to justify using humanitarian funding since these are not delivering immediate needs. But the positive side is the nexus will help proper preparation as soon as possible, including planning to improve other essential services such as health, education, and livelihood. Hence, it can work well if the assistance is delivered in settlement approaches instead of sector-wise. It should be through localization and community development rather than a highly centralized response. Lastly, there should be more advocacy investing in the humanitarian-development nexus to the donors, authorities, and agencies to achieve a robust structure that abides by the building code and sustainable housing recovery.

Arwin Soelaksono

humanitarian-development.org  

Photo credit: Madrina Mazhar

References:

1. Chaggar, Andrew. The Analytical and Practical Application of Relief-Development Continuum Principles to the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, focusing on Community-Based Reconstruction in the Context of Phang Nga, Thailand. Centre for Development Studies School of the Environment & Society. University of Wales Swansea. (2007)

2. Strand, Arne. Humanitarian–development Nexus. In: Humanitarianism: Keywords. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004431140/BP000048.xml?body=pdf-60830

3. Stamness, Eli. Rethinking the Humanitarian-Development Nexus. Policy Brief 24/2016. Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. (2016)