1 / 23

Looking back at reconstruction and disaster risk reduction in housing

Looking back at reconstruction and disaster risk reduction in housing. Geneva Shelter Meeting 13b October 29-30, 2013. Theo Schilderman Building and Social Housing Foundation (BSHF). Rationale. Disasters and development are related

zena
Download Presentation

Looking back at reconstruction and disaster risk reduction in housing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Looking back at reconstruction and disaster risk reduction in housing Geneva Shelter Meeting 13b October 29-30, 2013 Theo Schilderman Building and Social Housing Foundation (BSHF)

  2. Rationale • Disasters and development are related • Inappropriate development creates the vulnerabilities that turn hazards into disasters • Disasters tend to affect the poor more • Disasters and reconstruction can increase or decrease vulnerabilities • What happens can only be truly understood in the long term • We do not look at the long-term impact of reconstruction enough

  3. Rationale Number of longitudinal studies of impact by years after reconstruction (based on literature review)

  4. Purpose of the research • Investigate long term impacts of reconstruction projects on housing and livelihoods • Derive key factors or issues to be considered in future project design and as indicators • Determine gaps in understanding that merit further research • First phase using qualitative methods; development of tools could follow on from this

  5. Longitudinal Research • Shows the evolution of a project over time • Helps to discover impacts that were not yet visible at the end of projects Beware: • Opinions about a project can change over time (e.g. user satisfaction in Gujarat < J. Duyne) • Project context also changes, and with that the appropriateness of housing solutions (e.g. Alto Mayo < E. Guzman Negron)

  6. Themes

  7. User satisfaction: key questions • Whether people like or dislike their houses can be an important indicator of sustainability and replication of the types of housing built • Are users happy with their houses? • Advantages & disadvantages of living in the houses? • Did the project meet their needs and requirements?

  8. User satisfaction: early findings • Is subjective and can change over time • Users may have limited knowledge of e.g. quality • More user participation tends to lead to greater satisfaction (in the form of more appropriate design, flexibility, affordability,..) • Relocation is generally disliked • Quality and Disaster Resistance are valued • Lack of housing-related services is negative • Lack of livelihood opportunities regretted too

  9. Beneficiary targeting: key questions • Whether or not the right beneficiaries are reached is an important factor in the long-term impact of projects • Do projects reach the right people? • Are the solutions offered appropriate for them?

  10. Beneficiary targeting: early findings • Beneficiaries are frequently not occupying allocated houses or moving out • This happens more in DDR than in ODR • Relocation is a key factor in this (e.g. because of loss of livelihoods or social networks) • A lack of essential services, such as water, is another major factor • Poor quality construction sometimes is too

  11. Replication: key questions • Whether the housing solutions provided are being replicated by the beneficiaries or others is a good indicator of their appropriateness and sustainability • Have residents expanded their houses using techniques introduced by the project? • What limits the families to replicate this type of housing?

  12. Replication: early findings • Is made easier by the choice of familiar technologies for reconstruction • A feeling of “ownership” that comes with greater participation encourages replication • Poverty can hamper replication – if the technologies selected are unaffordable without aid • A lack of skills (or of training provided by projects) does diminish replication too

  13. Technical performance: key questions • It is only over the longer term that one can judge whether houses do stand up to further disasters, or the effects of climate, insects and other factors • Are they sufficiently durable? • Any maintenance issues?

  14. Technical performance: early findings • Disaster resistance is not required in the codes of some countries • Where codes do exist, they may be ineffective • DDR does not guarantee better quality than ODR • Poor workmanship increases vulnerability • Radical changes in technology may lead to poor quality • People do not always know or take account of site risks • Insecure tenure discourages good construction

  15. Impact on livelihoods: key questions • Did reconstruction generate additional and sustainable livelihoods? • Did projects stimulate non-reconstruction livelihoods? • Did people become more resilient / less vulnerable as a result of projects?

  16. Impact on livelihoods: early findings • Reconstruction can stimulate the local economy, but technology choice is crucial • But this is not always sustained • Top-down approaches can create dependency • Reconstruction can also empower, this can be to the benefit or detriment of the marginalised, women,.. • Disadvantaged people do need to get a voice • There is only sporadic evidence of empowered communities continuing with other actions • Relocation can cause livelihood losses, and if people return, greater housing vulnerability

  17. World Habitat Award winners and finalists as cases • La Paz Post-earthquake Recon- struction Programme, Fundasal, El Salvador, 2004 • Preventing Typhoon Damage to Housing, Development Workshop, Central Vietnam, 2008

  18. Case Studies Reconstruction: • Post-earthquake reconstruction in Chincha, Peru, 2010 (Practical Action) • La Paz earthquake reconstruction programme, El Salvador, 2009 (FUNDASAL) • Post-tsunami reconstruction and rehabilitation, Sri Lanka, 2008 (Practical Action) • Integrated people-driven reconstruction, Indonesia, 2007 (UPLINK) • Gandhi Nu Gam, Gujarat, India, 2004 (Vastu-Shilpa Foundation) • Reconstruction after hurricane Mitch in Honduras, 2000 (Sofonias) • Reconstruction after hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua, 2000 (Sofonias) • Reconstruction in the coastal province of Vietnam, 2009 (Development Workshop) • In Situ Rehabilitation of Earthquake Victims in Latur District, India, 1997 (HUDCO) Disaster Risk Reduction: • Preventing typhoon damage to housing, Central Vietnam, 2008 (Development Workshop) • Building and Construction Improvement Programme, Pakistan, 2006 (Aga Khan Planning and Building Service) • Clay Houses that have resisted earthquakes, Salama, Baja Verapaz, Guatemala, 2002 (Sofonias)

  19. Case studies

  20. Methodology • Field study • Interviews • Men & women of different age groups • Local leaders, builders, other agencies • Focus groups • Female/male • Observation of changes • Writing and photos • Writing of case study

  21. Next steps

  22. How you can help • Come to... • Help review one of the cases in detail before publication

  23. Thank you for your attention!Further informationjelly.moring@bshf.orgtheo.schilderman@bshf.orge.parker@coventry.ac.ukVisit www.bshf.orgRegister at:http://tinyurl.com/LBatRECONS

More Related