habitat for humanity indian ocean post-tsunami reconstruction
TRANSCRIPT
Emerging stronger?
Victoria Maynard University College London Habitat for Humanity Great Britain [email protected]
Assessing the impact of Habitat for Humanity’s housing reconstruction programme following the Indian Ocean Tsunami
Indian Ocean Tsunami: 2004 3 million people affected: 1.5 million lost livelihoods
440,000 new homes needed: Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, India
25,000 families served
Research design
To what extent had Habitat for Humanity’s housing reconstruction programmes contributed to the development of
sustainable communities and livelihoods?
people planet people planet
Research design
www.oasys-software.com/ products/environmental/aspire.html
Data collection
www.oasys-software.com/ products/environmental/aspire.html
Data analysis
product site selection and settlement planning
house design and construction access to services
Site selection/settlement planning
In-situ reconstruction had benefits in terms of maintaining access to social networks, livelihoods and social infrastructure. BUT… while relocated communities were less vulnerable to natural hazards they had reduced access to education and livelihoods.
HFH worked with the whole community as part of the reconstruction process. BUT… HFH’s approach to the built environment focussed on re-building houses rather than settlements. It’s programmes typically didn’t incorporate hazard assessment, planning and infrastructure at a settlement level.
House design and construction
HFH programmes in all four countries provided a simple single-storey “core home” which could later be extended. BUT… Many households had made the same alterations and extensions, relatively quickly after receiving their houses. Does this indicate limitations in the original design?
Core homes were typically masonry construction with a flat or pitched roof. BUT… where new technologies or seismic detailing had been introduced extensions typically reverted to traditional techniques.
Access to services
HFH typically provided toilets for each household. BUT… many households no longer used them.
HFH typically provided electricity to each household. BUT… where solar technologies had been introduced these were not fully understood.
HFH’s programme did not specifically target fuel consumption. BUT… many households had stopped using wood or charcoal for cooking.
HFH’s programme did not specifically target education. BUT… most households felt that HFH's programme had increased access to education.
process community engagement
relationships with other actors
Community engagement
HFH typically targeted vulnerable groups and the programme had increased community cohesion.
HFH developed a different design for each country. BUT… households felt changes were not allowed.
Different approaches to construction were taken in each country. Local sourcing of materials and labour had the greatest short and long-term impact.
Do many of the challenges experienced have the same root cause? Did HFH ‘inform’ or ‘consult’ with communities, rather than work in ‘partnership’ or ‘delegate power’?
Source: Arnstein (1969)
Other actors
HFH’s focus on working in partnership with communities, government and other NGOs meant that the project had improved linkages between the communities assisted and external actors.
In many cases HFH also established positive relationships with material suppliers, labourers and larger contractors; supporting wider economic recovery during the reconstruction process.
HFH did not have a systematic approach to supporting livelihood recovery. Perhaps this would be better achieved through partnership with specialist actors?
Conclusions
HFH’s programme had made a significant contribution to the development of sustainable communities and livelihoods.
Houses, land tenure and services
Benefits to health and well-being
Increased community cohesion
Relationships with external actors.
The programme had also contributed to wider environmental and economic recovery, although to a lesser extent.
Lessons
The need for participation in decision-making throughout the project – design, construction, maintenance and replication.
The importance of considering the long-term use of houses, infrastructure, construction materials or technologies from the outset.
The need to consider communities and settlements in addition to families and houses - hazard assessment, settlement planning, infrastructure.
The importance of a holistic approach to recovery of people’s lives and livelihoods focused on outcomes.
Thank you
Co-authors:
Priti Parikh, University College London
Dan Simpson, HFH International
Jo da Silva, Arup International Development
Contact me via:
Victoria Maynard, HFH Great Britain
www.resilienturbanism.org