Dr. Eefje Hendriks is a Lecturer and Researcher at Avans University of Applied Science and Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands.
Knowledge adoption is not only important during direct reconstruction but should be retained within the community. Therefore, community learning is important to enhance. In this line, it is important to limit the conditions for aid. People show that they can make those decisions. Finally, it is essential to align communication to local habits, culture, cognitive levels and local skills and financial limitations.
Experiencing a disaster is a reality for many. Yearly, 210 million people are affected by a natural hazard, 14 million become homeless, 68 thousand get killed, from which, 93% in low-income countries – primarily in poorly constructed houses, 26 million are pushed back into poverty, and there is yearly 142 billion USD damage, from which, 70% can be linked back to housing. These staggering numbers show how serious this problem is. Earthquakes, typhoons, floods often recur in the same areas and repeatedly affect the most vulnerable groups living in low-income countries. During reconstruction, many affected households do not apply construction techniques that protect them from recurring hazards, such as earthquakes or hurricanes.
There is a limited theoretical and empirical understanding of what motivates or limits people to apply technical knowledge that protects their house from these recurring hazards. Too often, people reconstruct inadequately, and communication tools are often inadequate to support people to build back safer. The rising number of people in need due to natural hazards restricts the funding that can be spent on the second phase after a disaster that includes the reconstruction of houses, let alone on research and innovation of humanitarian assistance. Therefore, there are many aspects of post-disaster reconstruction that remains under-explored.
The vast majority of affected populations reconstruct their house without humanitarian technical assistance. They do it on their own. It is crucial to understand how this group reconstructs their houses. Yet, it is seldom described in empirical studies. Understanding their process could potentially enhance the efficacy of the aid that is given.
To reduce safety risks for affected communities, I aimed in my doctoral study to understand what influences decision-making in housing reconstruction to enhance the effectivity of reconstruction assistance. This study adapted the adoption theory to compare decision making of self-recovering households with those that do receive humanitarian aid. I have developed a theoretical model to study knowledge adoption in practice based on an extensive literature study. This model links different actors and networks, their knowledge awareness, needs, and communication. Based on empirical findings and theory, I developed a method for audience-specific communication strategies.
Reconstruction in the Philippines and Nepal
I studied the reconstruction after the 2013 Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines and after the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake in Nepal. Field research assessed disaster-affected communities that received different intensities of humanitarian technical assistance. The approach was to explore in situ barriers, drivers and outcomes of decision-making before suggesting interventions aiming to build resilience and reduce disaster risks.
In the Philippines, people were left without humanitarian assistance and little governmental assistance to reconstruct their houses on the West Coast 3.5 years after the typhoon. To reflect upon the reconstruction, I collected a large mixed-method dataset in six communities. To gain insights into the communities affected, 220 households were interviewed, 13 carpenter interviews and focus group discussions were conducted in six communities. To gain insights from institutional stakeholders, 20 interviews with government officials, builders, and humanitarian organizations were conducted over two years.
In the second part of this study, I looked at reconstruction three years after the Gorkha Earthquake in Nepal in two districts. This study compared two disaster-affected districts, of which, one had received significantly more humanitarian technical shelter assistance than the other. This was a far larger study, including a mixed method in 25 communities. Again, stakeholder perspectives were assessed using a total of 1453 household interviews, 1456 structural assessments of houses, 25 focus group discussions with community members, and 61 key stakeholder interviews.
Lessons Learned About Build Back Safer
The study has resulted in many lessons that cannot be individually addressed in this article. I will share a few lessons learned.
First of all, technical knowledge to build back safer housing does not reach everyone. The communities in this study in the Philippines did not gain access to the basic concepts of typhoon-resistant construction techniques. They did not have access to online or printed resources, and if they were, they experienced difficulties in understanding these abstract technical drawings. I explain in this study that this is partly due to the lack of clear responsibilities of knowledge dissemination between important classes of stakeholders.
Secondly, a safe house is not always a priority. For example, in the communities in the Philippines, access to clean drinking water was indicated as a crucial aspect for the resilience of communities. People depend largely on fishery as a livelihood. Boats were lost or heavily damaged. Being able to replace them is essential as a starting point in their recovery.
Thirdly, the people in both countries – the Philippines and Nepal, were strongly motivated to protect their family and build back safer housing. They generally understood steps that enhance their resilience. In both cases, people experienced limited opportunities to do so.
In Nepal, one of the most surprising outcomes was that humanitarian assistance is not always crucial to enhance the safety of structures. In Nepal, both districts in this study showed high compliance with earthquake-resistant construction techniques. The Government of Nepal provided financial support if people follow earthquake-resistant construction techniques. This study showed that the successful application of safety features can be linked back to the guidance of governmental engineers. People with humanitarian assistance had a better understanding of the techniques, which can help to retain knowledge in the communities in the long run.
Finally, low satisfaction with designs can become problematic long term. Governmental designs in Nepal did not always align with the needs of households. Some wanted a bigger house to store their crops or multiple rooms for their family and religious needs. Many intended to make changes to the safe house they constructed. If households start to make changes, it could impact safety.
Recommendations to Build Back Safer
Based on this empirical study, I have formulated practical implications, apart from the theoretical implications. These mostly align with an earlier research.
• It is important to define success based on local values for resilience. It is important to give ownership to affected populations to make decisions for their resilience.
• Support informed choices instead of standardized designs to enhance satisfaction and let people balance safety with other needs.
• Respect local priorities even if it does not directly lead to safer structures.
• Invest in exchange of knowledge in which households can develop satisfactory designs based on technical knowledge. In the long term, these households are expected to be more successful in creating satisfactory and safe designs.
• Develop trust to create an effective exchange of knowledge and avoid power relationships.
• People often need to restore their livelihood as the first step towards resilience. They are often willing and capable of investing in their safety later.
• It is crucial to adjust the timeframe of aid to local processes. Sometimes, aid slows down or accelerates reconstruction causing negative side effects.
• Safe designs should think about the future of the household and include an incremental strategy. Knowledge adoption is not only important during direct reconstruction but should be retained within the community. Therefore, community learning is important to enhance. In this line, it is important to limit the conditions for aid. People show that they can make those decisions.
• It is essential to align communication to local habits, culture, cognitive levels and local skills and financial limitations. In my study, I developed a method to do so. I propose to adapt communication to the motivation, ability and opportunity of affected households. Research has shown that people can be grouped based on these perceptions and learn from each other’s differences.
• Strengthen the knowledge of community-based carpenters in both the Philippines and Nepal as they are the main source of information for the affected households and they often remain present in the communities over long periods.
