bshf literature review on impact of reconstruction
TRANSCRIPT
What do we know about the impact
of reconstruction?
A look at the literature
International Conference at
Coventry University
January 15-16, 2014
Theo Schilderman Building and Social Housing Foundation (BSHF)
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 and resilience • What happens can only be truly understood in
the long term • We do not look at the long-term impact of
reconstruction enough
2
Rationale
15
11
29
44
+5 years
3-4 years
1-2 years
Unknown
Number of longitudinal studies of impact by years after reconstruction (based on literature review)
3
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
• Not: develop tools. First phase used qualitative methods; development of tools could follow later
4
Themes
User satisfaction
Beneficiary targeting
Replication
Technical performance
Impact on livelihood
5
User satisfaction: key findings 1
• Is subjective and can change over time: initially dissatisfied people may learn to cope (Duyne, Gujarat) whereas the expectations of others may grow over time (Guzman Negron, Peru)
• Some users may have limited knowledge of e.g. quality; satisfaction does not equal performance
• More user participation tends to lead to greater satisfaction (in the form of more appropriate design, flexibility, affordability,..)
6
User satisfaction: key findings 2
IMPORTANT LIKES AND DISLIKES
• Relocation is generally disliked (affects livelihoods, transport and social networks)
• Quality, durability and disaster resistance are valued, but not if they reduce size
• Lack of housing-related services is dislikes
• Lack of livelihood opportunities is regretted too
Factors such as these can make people not occupy allocated houses or move out again
7
Beneficiary targeting: key findings 1
• Intended beneficiaries are frequently not occupying allocated houses or moving out
• Is that because projects reach the wrong people, or design the wrong solutions for the right targets?
• Agencies face hard choices between providing the ideal house to a few and some house to many
• If too little is provided, the better-off tend to move away; if too much is provided, poorer people are sometimes tempted to sell, or unable to maintain
• Amongst the poor, non-owners are neglected
8
Beneficiary targeting: key findings 2
• Wrongly designed houses or neighbourhoods happen much more in DDR than in ODR
• Participation is crucial in this
• The dislikes in user satisfaction are key factors here too
• People who do not occupy their house, or move out, often go back to their old locations and their old ways of housing – maintaining their vulnerability
9
Replication: key findings 1
• Replication of reconstruction examples is happening less than agencies hope for
• Some of this is due to dissatisfaction, and some to changing expectations of residents
• But the resources residents dispose of are a bigger factor
• Poverty hampers replication, especially where subsidies enabled higher standards of construction than before the disaster
10
Replication: key findings 2
• A lack of skills (or of training provided by projects, e.g. when only giving cash for shelter) reduces replication too
• Is made easier by the choice of familiar (vernacular) technologies for reconstruction
• The call for building safely after disasters often comes with a demand for modern technologies that are much harder to replicate
• A feeling of “ownership” that comes with greater participation overcomes dissatisfaction and encourages replication
11
Technical performance:
key findings 1
• Disaster resistance is not required in the building codes of some countries
• Where codes do exist, they may be ineffective
• People do not always know or have sufficient awareness of site risks
• Where disaster resistance is not legally imposed effectively, there often is insufficient encouragement and information to residents for building safer
12
Technical performance:
key findings 2
• DDR does not guarantee better quality than ODR
• Poor workmanship increases vulnerability, as does insufficiently qualified project staff
• Radical changes in technology may lead to poor quality
• Some infrastructure is crucial to reduce risks (e.g. good drains), but too often projects provide houses only
• Insecure tenure discourages good construction
13
Impact on livelihoods: key findings 1
• Reconstruction can stimulate the local economy, but to achieve that, technology choice is crucial
• But this is not always sustained; the construction sector may contract after reconstruction ends. A lot depends on wider economic development.
• Relocation can cause livelihood losses. • If this forces people to return to original sites, it
often comes with greater housing vulnerability • Too few projects integrate livelihood support
with housing
14
Impact on livelihoods: key findings 2
• Top-down approaches can create dependency, hampering the development of people’s resilience
• Reconstruction can empower, but this can be to the benefit or detriment of the marginalised
• Disadvantaged people do need special attention
• There is only sporadic evidence of empowered communities continuing with other actions after reconstruction ends
15
Questions for the conference to
address:
1. In how far do we need to change our current understanding of impact, and the ways we reconstruct, in the light of these findings on long-term impact?
2. What gaps still exist in our understanding, and what research is needed to fill those?
3. Does what we learned help to design better indicators of reconstruction success, and if not, is there a need to develop tools to define success better?
16
Thank you for your attention!
Further information
Visit
www.bshf.org
17