Building back better with people centered housing recovery

Author’s Accepted Manuscript Building Back Better with People Centered Housing Recovery Elizabeth Maly

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijdr

PII: DOI: Reference:

S2212-4209(17)30174-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.09.005 IJDRR634

To appear in: International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction Received date: 17 April 2017 Revised date: 19 August 2017 Accepted date: 2 September 2017 Cite this article as: Elizabeth Maly, Building Back Better with People Centered Housing Recovery, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.09.005 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting galley proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Title: Building Back Better with People Centered Housing Recovery Author: Elizabeth Maly Affiliation: International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku Universiry Contact: Elizabeth Maly, Aoba 468-1, Aramaki, Aoba-ku, Sendai, 980-0845, JAPAN, e-mail: [email protected] Keywords: people-centered housing reconstruction; build back better; housing recovery; typhoon yolanda; merapi eruption; Abstract: Since 2006 when “Build Back Better” (BBB) was used in Aceh to advocate for post-tsunami recovery that reduces risk and improves people’s lives, BBB has become widely-used in disaster risk reduction and recovery, post-disaster recovery plans, and was recently featured in the 2015 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. While improving pre-disaster conditions is a shared goal for recovery, BBB is shown to be both too broad a term to offer meaningful direction in relation to housing reconstruction, and also used too narrowly to describe safer construction without holistic consideration of what is “better” for people’s lives. This paper argues that “People Centered Housing Recovery” (PCHR) can address these limits of BBB and guide post-disaster housing reconstruction with multiple aspects: housing design and form that meet people’s needs; genuine participation of empowered residents in decision-making and construction; and holistic policies accountable to all residents. This framework of PCHR is used to examine cases of housing reconstruction and relocation after two disasters--the 2010 volcanic eruption of Mt. Merapi in Indonesia, and 2013 Typhoon Yolanda in the Philippines, and PCHR is suggested as a way to think about truly building back better for people.

1. Introduction Two years after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, United Nations Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery William Clinton called for “Building Back Better” in Aceh’s ongoing recovery [1], along with many agencies and organizations using “build back better” at that time to describe recovery goals [2, 3] In the decade since, “Build Back Better” became an increasingly popular way to describe a wide variety of disaster recovery goals, and featured in many disaster recovery plans [3,4,5]. In 2015, Build Back Better (BBB) became one of four Priorities highlighted in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 [6], the new international DRR guideline. Broadly used to call for postdisaster recovery that improves local conditions, BBB has become a shorthand for recovery that includes disaster risk reduction, or for good recovery practices in general. Despite its widespread and growing use, BBB has several serious limitations related to post-disaster housing recovery. 1) Lacking a shared or precise definition, BBB remains a vague term used for a wide range of ideas [3,7]. 2) Yet BBB can also be narrowly defined as risk reduction through building or land use regulations, ignoring needs of affected people and potential impacts on their lives. 3) Describing general recovery goals in various sectors, few exceptions [7, 8] reflect knowledge of good

practices or ways to evaluate housing reconstruction. To address these limitations of BBB, this paper proposes the concept of People Centered Housing Recovery (PCHR), based on established principles demonstrating the importance of putting residents at the center of the reconstruction process [8, 9, 10]. In line with Clinton’s 1st Proposition for BBB--“Governments, donors, and aid agencies must recognize that families and communities drive their own recovery,” [1]–PCHR is a holistic approach to building back better to improve survivors’ lives beyond a narrow focus on risk reduction. PCHR can also guide and evaluate post-disaster housing reconstruction on multiple scales: 1) overall policy and implementation of housing reconstruction supporting lives and livelihoods of affected residents at the scale of the disaster area; 2) a housing recovery processes based on residents’ involvement in decisionmaking at the community scale; and 3) houses whose design and construction are accountable to residents’ needs at the household scale. 2. Objective and Methodology The objective of this paper is to critically examine the growing use of the term Build Back Better (BBB) within the disaster and housing recovery discourse, and address the limitations of BBB by proposing an alternative concept of People Centered Housing Recovery (PCHR). With this goal, this paper draws from a review and analysis of disaster recovery and housing reconstruction literature. Based on an analysis of key sources within this discourse, the concept of PCHR is developed as it relates to housing recovery at multiple scales, and used as the basis for analysis of cases of housing reconstruction and relocation after two natural disasters--the 2010 volcanic eruption of Mt. Merapi near Yogyakarta, Indonesia, and 2013 Typhoon Yolanda in Tacloban City, Philippines. These examples show how the framework of PCHR can be used to apply broad ideas of building back better to multiple scales within the housing recovery processes, and can be used to evaluate specific aspects of housing reconstruction to support livelihoods of disaster survivors. Case study analysis is based on information gathered from reports and documentation, and through interviews with government officials, project and organization representatives, community leaders, and residents, and direct observation. Site visits lasted 7 to 10 days: in Merapi during Dec. 2010, Sept. 2011, Nov. 2013, Aug. 2014, and Jan/Feb. 2015; and in Tacloban during Feb. 2015, July 2015, Oct. 2015, Jan 2016, June 2016, Oct./Nov. 2016, and Jan. 2017. During interviews, interpretation between English and local languages relied on the coordination and support and of faculty and students from local universities—Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta, and University of Philippines and Eastern Visayas State University in Tacloban.

3. The Concept of Build Back Better 3.1 Emergence and use of the term Build Back Better Although “build back better” had been used to discuss sustainability [7,11], Clinton’s use of the term in Aceh caught global attention. The “10 Key Propositions for Building Back Better” Clinton [1] published as UN Special Envoy offer the clearest definition of BBB [7]. The Propositions recognized: “families and communities drive their own recovery;” local governments should be empowered (and strengthened by donors) to manage recovery; international agencies must clarify roles and relationships, NGOs recognize their responsibility in recovery, and agency partnerships improved. They included broad principles of “fairness and equity” in recovery, the importance of good information for recovery planning and coordination, specific support for entrepreneurs along with holistic livelihood recovery, and emphasized disaster preparation, risk reduction, and resilience [1]. The Propositions covered a broad range of established good practices in recovery, such as linking relief with recovery and the importance of livelihood and development. The ideas were not new, but “build back better” became a popular phrase for recovery improving on pre-disaster situations, and many organizations relabeled their projects as embracing BBB, used to describe a broad variety of actions such as post-conflict peace building in Aceh and Sri Lanka, sustainable development and

livelihood activities in Myanmar after Typhoon Nargis, and other programs unrelated to earthquake damage in Haiti [3]. Beyond the 10 Propositions, there have been few attempts to clarify concrete principles or guidelines to apply the concept of BBB, with the exception of Mannakkara and Wilkinson [12] who have developed a BBB framework that includes: risk reduction; community recovery; and implementation. Based on an analysis of selected recovery plans and guidelines, their BBB framework is a clear synthesis of key ideas for general good practices in recovery, and supports the prevalent understanding of BBB as good recovery that incorporates risk reduction. While their BBB framework accurately reflects the current general recovery discourse, it does not consider specific factors related to housing recovery knowledge or the incorporation of development principles that call for people to be at the center of recovery. Mannakkara and Wilkinson’s emphasis on community participation and life recovery also suggest the fundamental reason behind this author’s commitment to promoting the idea of people centered housing recovery---it is possible to have the best intentions for a good recovery, with ideas of providing good recovery programs and services for residents, without considering that the residents themselves should be the ones making the decisions---the recovery should reflect what the residents want for their recovery, not what of experts consider to be best. This shift is the key point for the argument called for People Centered Housing Recovery as the approach that can help to indeed build back better for people’s lives. 3.2 Build Back Better and Disaster Risk Reduction Clinton’s Proposition #10 stated, “Good recovery must leave communities safer by reducing risks and building resilience” [1]. As featured in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), the meaning of “build back better” has recently been increasingly equated with disaster risk reduction; as Key Priority #4 in the SFDRR, BBB is defined as “preventing the creation of and reduction of existing disaster risk” [6,13]. The idea that recovery should reduce future disaster risk is not new. Humanitarian actors have long understood the need to address underlying conditions that lead to reoccurring disaster damage, along with a general shift to focus on disaster prevention heralded by the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction [14]. As demonstrated by the SFDRR, BBB has been adopted as the newest DRR slogan. Whereas no one would argue against risk reduction, or for building back worse, it is important to consider how “safer” and “better” are defined, and by whom. In the name of BBB, structural or material requirements or relocation away from designated risk areas may not create better outcomes for residents if their lives are not considered holistically. As Kennedy [7] pointed out, buffer zones intended to reduce risk and build back better can result in the opposite--harming livelihood and thus increasing vulnerability. Monday [11] also emphasized building back better must not “consider hazard mitigation in isolation from other aspects of community building” and ensure attempts to “protect from hazards are not simply creating burdens for someone else.” Kennedy [7] also argues that recovery “should not address one hazard at the expense of others.” To answer the question: “better than what?” housing reconstruction should avoid an oversimplification of BBB as a reduction of hazard risk and be based rather on a holistic consideration of residents’ needs and their own decisions about housing design and construction, if the goal is building back better for affected residents. 3.3. Build Back Better and Housing Recovery Although housing (re)construction is a significant part of actual ‘building back’ in disaster recovery, neither the Propositions nor other discussions of BBB specifically consider implementation of housing reconstruction, or link to the extensive body of expert knowledge about housing recovery. “The Meaning of ‘Build Back Better’: Evidence from Post-Tsunami Aceh and Sri Lanka,” [7] is a rare exception, drawing on the authors’ experience to consider “build back better” in relation to housing recovery. Understanding that post-disaster shelter is not merely an object, but actually a “series of actions” to meet residents’ needs, Kennedy et al. [7] focus on the importance of transitional settlements and shelter to support a holistic recovery, reduce vulnerability and build back better. Based

on a categorization of Clinton’s 10 Key Propositions, Kennedy identifies four themes relevant to BBB in the context of post-disaster transitional housing and recovery: “safety, security, and livelihoods; transition to what?; fairness and equity; and connecting relief and development for transitional settlement and shelter” [7]. Emphasizing community participation, clear communication of the entire shelter recovery process to residents; and a simultaneous consideration of all hazards and all vulnerabilities; they argue BBB can be interpreted to mean “build back to a less vulnerable state than before” [7]. Noting the confusion in the multiple ways BBB is used and defined, Kennedy [7] concluded that ‘building back safer’ might be a more appropriate term. It should be noted that their interpretation of safer includes a broad consideration of reduced vulnerability and improvements in people’s lives. In response to narrow interpretations of building back safer that prioritize technical interpretations of single facets such as building structure, Fan [3] argues that for a meaningful distinction from “building back safer,” “build back better” can not be insulated from surrounding political and social movements; it must go beyond (only) technical fixes and focus on transforming social and political power relations. As these authors have explained from different angles, BBB has not been synchronized with the real issues of housing recovery; where it has, the focus has become narrowly defined as “building back safer.” As Fan suggests, BBB must go beyond building safer housing, and can play a role in housing reconstruction, which is firmly within a social context. Kennedy [7] explains that genuine building back better requires a “long term, comprehensive, and integrated approach” and community involvement in housing recovery. This idea is also supported by Lyons [8], who emphasizes the problematic nature of a top down approach to housing, and that development gains require residents’ participation. In response to these limitations of BBB, the alternative yet complementary concept of PCHR is introduced and explained in the next section. 4. People Centered Housing Recovery 4.1 History of the evolving idea of “putting people at the center” While the use of the term “people centered” has been growing in recent years in development and housing reconstruction [8,9,15] the idea of putting people at the center of housing recovery has been endorsed by housing experts and international agencies since the 1970s, shaped by John Turner’s ideas that people should be in charge of their own housing and reconstruction and that housing is not a product but rather a process that can empower residents [16]. From the first United Nations Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver in 1976 known as Habitat 1, the Vancouver Declaration on Human Settlements emphasized principles of human rights, equality and accountability [17]. Recognizing that most housing is provided by people themselves as Turner argued, the Vancouver Declaration called for a shift towards reconstruction by people themselves. Several years later, Ian Davis emphasized the importance of the “viewpoint of survivors” in recovery, and the need for accountability--putting the values and needs of local people at the center of reconstruction [18]. In the first UN study on emergency shelter, Shelter after Disaster, Davis approached the “problem of shelter after disaster from the point of view of the survivor” rather than that of assisting groups and agencies [19]. 4.2 People-centered development Prioritizing human development in contrast to conventional development focused exclusively on economic growth, “people centered” has become a guiding principle in international development [15, 20]. People-centred Development: Empowered lives. Resilient nations, the United Nations Development Program’s 2010-2011 report, defined human development as that which “expands choices available to people in order to live valuable lives;” whereas economic growth is a means to do so, “people’s well-being and their quality of life is the most important measure of development” [15]. Towards this goal, UNDP concludes that

People must be at the centre of human development, both as beneficiaries and as drivers, as individuals and in groups. People must be empowered with the tools and knowledge to build their own communities, states and nations [15]. This stance that people must be at the center, beneficiaries and drivers are one and the same, and people themselves are the ones to build their own communities and should be empowered to do so, echo principles of housing reconstruction championed by Turner and Davis. In 2015, a 2nd edition of Shelter after Disaster [21] explored how key issues had evolved in the 30 years since the first edition, including a major shift towards people-centered approaches. As housing reconstruction is increasingly regarded as “development rather than relief and welfare,” disaster survivors are more likely to be considered active participants instead of passive victims [21]. Along with a stronger representation of people-centered ideas in housing recovery discourse, ideas about housing recovery have also grown closer to development. 4.3 Multiple facets of people-centered housing reconstruction Several recent publications and housing reconstruction guidelines embrace “people centered recovery” or “putting people at the center” including Shelter and Housing from UN Habitat [22] which calls for a “People-centred approach” emphasizing “building on people’s capacity, giving access to resources and responsibility for decision making” instead of creating “passive victims” [22]. On the scale of human settlements, UN Habitat has championed the “People’s Process” for housing reconstruction for years [23]. The World Bank housing reconstruction guideline Safer Homes, Stronger Communities [9] also underscores the importance of people-centered recovery in a section titled “Achieving PeopleCentered, Integrated Reconstruction: It can’t be emphasized strongly enough that the affected population should be at the center of the reconstruction process and should have preferential right to make the decisions that will affect their lives… [the] government’s first job after a disaster, with the help of humanitarian and development agencies, is to determine what the community is capable of doing. The government should then do the rest [9]. This description highlights several facets of what it means to put people at the center of housing reconstruction: the affected population as decision makers and main actors (participation); and the role of government to be aware of and complement people’s own capabilities. Focusing on participation in housing recovery, Lyons et al. [8] were the first to promote the concept of People Centered Housing Reconstruction linked to the idea of Building Back Better. In Building Back Better: Delivering People Centered Housing Reconstruction at Scale, Lyons et al, [8] “analyze the potential for large-scale reconstruction to be participatory and developmental for and of ordinary people--‘people centered reconstruction.’” Lyons’ definition of people centered housing recovery includes developmental aspects (increased resilience and reduction of poverty), the importance of a participatory process, and a focus on scaling up to wider project areas (the overall disaster area). In the first chapter, Shilderman emphasizes the need to put residents at the center of the recovery process to address individual households’ needs in reconstruction. Describing disaster survivors’ loss of housing, he says: Once a disaster has destroyed that asset, they may need outside assistance to reconstruct it non-incrementally, but the house still will have to meet their needs, which is one of the key reasons for putting people at the centre of reconstruction [24]. 4.4 Participation in reconstruction

Although the importance of residents’ participation in housing recovery is widely accepted [25, 26] (the varied reality of participation is also understood. As Turner [16] had asked in the section ‘Participation in Housing’ in his book Housing by People: “Whose participation in whose decisions?” Housing reconstruction projects with the stated goal of participation actually exist on a continuum— people are involved in varying degrees, with various levels of ownership and accountability. Based on the idea that these levels form steps on a ‘ladder of community participation’ described by Arnstein [27] and modified by Choguill [28] Davidson et al. [29] developed a ‘ladder of community participation’ in post disaster housing recovery based on the “amount of community control over project decision-making,” ranging from ‘empowerment’ with full community control at the top to ‘manipulation’ on the bottom. At the most practical level, direct participation in housing construction is a way to ensure houses meet residents’ needs through approaches such as owner-driven reconstruction (ODR). In ODR, homeowners receive money or materials and then make their own choices about rebuilding. As opposed to donor-driven housing reconstruction, the success of ODR was demonstrated in Gujarat [10] and has been used by major agencies including the World Bank, and in subsequent recovery projects such as rural housing reconstruction in Pakistan [30]. However, ORD has limitations. As Thiruppugazh [31] explains, ODR could be successful in Gujarat because of a strong and established governance system. Lyons also identified a key difference between ODR and PCHR: while “donor-driven reconstruction is inappropriate,” “owner-driven reconstruction is too exclusive” since by excluding renters and those without land titles, it can not address housing needs of all residents [8]. While participation in planning, design processes and housing construction contribute to housing reconstruction more accountable to residents’ actual needs, and ODR can be a useful method for housing reconstruction, Lyons emphasizes the larger overall importance of shifting from a supply-driven relief mode to a more people-centered reconstruction mode, and emphasizes that participation does not guarantee a peoplecentered recovery. 4.5 Towards a working definition of PCHR in the context of BBB With the shared consensus that people-centered housing recovery includes genuine participation of residents and reflects development thinking about desired impacts of reconstruction to improve lives and residents’ capacity, the literature discussed in this section emphasizes various aspects of PCHR (Table 1) that can be categorized at multiple scales of housing recovery: 1) policies and development in the overall disaster-area scale; 2) participation in decision-making processes at the community scale, and 3) housing design, form and construction of individual houses at the household scale. The following working guidelines for PCHR included these three aspects, as shown in Table 1.  Overall policy that supports PCHR at the community and household levels; and a holistic developmental approach to recovery that includes livelihood, and equity and accountability for all affected people with no beneficiaries left out of the recovery process.  At the neighborhood/community scale, PCHR requires genuine participation of empowered residents in the process and decisions about their homes.  At the individual household scale, PCHR should lead to the construction of houses whose design and form meet residents’ own needs for daily life and secure shelter.

Table 1. Summary of PCHR concepts and implications at multiple scales, at a working guideline Concepts from Key Sources related to People Centered Housing Reconstruction

Relevant aspect of housing recovery

John Turner [16], Ian Davis [18,19]: housing as process not product; people are main actors in (re)construction. Vancouver Declaration [17]; Disaster and the Small Dwelling [18]; Shelter after Disaster [19] International development: Post-disaster housing reconstruction should contribute to increased resilience and reduced poverty. UNDP [15] UN Habitat: “People’s Process” [23]

The house itself, building practices, Participation in construction and decision making

Shift from ideas of investment in economic growth, to human development

Shift to development thinking at the policy level

People central to decision making process, building design/ construction

“People-centered housing reconstruction” World Bank, Safer Home, Stronger Communities [9] “People-centered housing reconstruction” Lyons et al. Building Back Better: People Centered Housing Reconstruction at Scale[8] Working Guidelines for PCHR at multiple scales

Implications at Multiple Scales Scale: Disaster Scale: area (Policy Community/ Level) Neighborhood Applied to Participation in international the process principles, key policy documents, to shape policywide area.

Developmentalincrease resilience/reduce poverty), residents’ participation

Government’s role: be aware of and complement people’s own capabilities. Reduce vulnerability; focus: scaling up to entire disaster area. 1. Developmental approach with policies support equitable housing accountable to residents’ needs.

Community members have central role in decision making. Participation: affected people/ community are main actors/ decision makers Housing reconstruction is a participatory process 2. Genuine participation of empowered residents

Scale: House/ household People involved in construction of their own homes, and related decisions.

Houses are residents’ assets, construction skill is development of human resources Housing design based on people’s choices/decisions

Individual houses responds to peoples’ needs

3. House design meets residents’ needs; they are involved in decisions and design/constructi on.

In general, PCHR concepts are not in conflict with that of BBB. To the degree that BBB is interpreted as recovery with a developmental approach, PCHR supports this, as well as the importance of participation, and livelihood. In contract and in addition to BBB, PCHR principles provide a more detailed approach with specific aspects targeting housing reconstruction issues, drawing from expert knowledge in this field. Finally, PCHR can be used to refute the logic of BBB that focuses exclusively on regulations related to physical risk reduction with less regard to people’s lives and livelihood. In summary, while BBB and PCHR are complementary ideas with overlapping aspects, PCHR goes beyond BBB to guarantee that people and their needs have the primary role in recovery. 5. Consideration of PCHR through two cases of post-disaster housing reconstruction

Based on these PCHR guidelines at multiple scales, this section considers two cases of post-disaster housing recovery and relocation: the REKOMPAK program after the 2010 volcanic eruption of Mt Merapi, north of Yogyakarta, Indonesia; and two housing recovery projects in Tacloban City, Philippines, after 2013 Typhoon Yolanda—new housing provided by 1) the National Housing Authority (NHA), and 2) a consortium of NGOs. Housing recovery after both of these disasters focused on the provision of new housing in resettlement areas away from hazard risk, with the majority of reconstruction support from the national government. In all 3 cases, housing recovery projects are also intended to build back batter, as defined by their own plans and other documentation.

Figure 1: REKOMPAK Initial Core house Photos by the author

Figure 3: NHA Housing

Figure 5. REKOMPAK Merapi 6x6 meter core house

Figure 2: Expanded core house in resettlement site

Figure 4: Housing in Pope Francis Village

Figure 6. NHA house 4m x 5.5m row house

Figure 7. One of PFV row 5m x 4.5 meter 1st and 2nd floors

Figure 8. Examples of residents’ relocation In main REKOMPAK Merapi villages.

Figure 9. Map of Tacloban City, showing Distance to NHA and PFV resettlement sites.

5.1.1 Post-Merapi REKOMPAK program, Indonesia In October and November 2010, the eruption of Mt. Merapi volcano near Yogyakarta, Indonesia, heavily damaged area communities; close to 3000 houses were destroyed by pyroclastic flow, mud flow or cold lava, or river floods caused by volcanic material. Drawing on past disaster recovery experiences, the Indonesian government implemented the Community-Based Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Settlement Project (REKOMPAK) for Merapi. With different multi-lateral and donor funding sources, other REKOMPAK programs had previously been used to provide housing reconstruction programs in Aceh after the 2004 Tsunami, and in Java after the 2006 Central Java Earthquake. In the case of Merapi, REKOMPAK built close to 3000 new houses, with significant support from technical experts and facilitators throughout the project, and residents’ participation from early planning stages and site design through community-based construction [32]. 5.1.2. Merapi REKOMPAK: PCHR at Policy Scale, Community Scale, and Household Scale Most REKOMPAK houses were built in collective resettlement sites, but other options included: rebuilding individual houses on former or newly acquired land outside the hazard area; support for resident groups who found their own land for resettlement sites; and combining support with that of non-government donors. This flexibility within the program allowed REKOMPAK to be support various housing recovery options in response to residents’ situations. Site planning and house designs were developed with support from technical experts/facilitators; with intense participation throughout the process, including construction and management, the REKOMPAK program exemplifies the focus on decision making and resident involvement at the community scale. Based on a basic 6x6 meter expandable core house design (Figures 1, 5) residents could choose from several room configurations. Although limited by site and size constraints, residents could continue to modify/expand their houses after construction (Figure 2).

5.1.3 Merapi REKOMPAK: PCHR vs. BBB

Since the earlier REKOMPAK program in Aceh, the idea of BBB was part of REKOMPAK [33]. Disaster risk reduction was included in the form of seismically reinforced houses, provision of road and utility infrastructure along with housing, and provision of housing outside hazardous areas. These goals of BBB, however, were only one aspect of REKOMPAK Merapi, which fully encompassed the principles of PCHR: flexibility of the program to provide housing in different conditions; intense community participation; community-driven decision-making and construction processes; and options for residents to make choices and housing modifications. REKOMPAK Merapi embraced a housing reconstruction approach that truly represents building back better for the affected people—which can be understood by the use of PCHR principles at multiple scales: policy, community involvement, house and site design based on people own choices and needs. 5.2 Post-Yolanda housing reconstruction in Tacloban, Philippines On November 8th, 2013, Typhoon Yolanda caused devastation across the Philippines, and severe damage in Tacloban City, destroying almost 30,000 houses, primarily in coastal settlements whose residents had informal land tenure. Tacloban City’s recovery focused on providing new housing in resettlement sites in the northern part of the city [34]. The city-coordinated housing recovery process includes various combinations of support. As of January 2017, the National Housing Authority (NHA), planned to build more than 13,000 houses, and construction of more than another 2,600 houses was planned by NGOs, including on land provided by the city as well as land independently purchased by NGOs [35]. Among the different combinations of multiple actors providing emergency, temporary and permanent housing recovery support, residents experience various paths through the wide variety of settlement locations and sizes, housing designs, selection processes, and regulations. With various levels of oversight and input into the decisions of different recovery actors, the Tacloban City Housing and Community Development Office has been coordinating this large scale and incredibly complex relocation process for the first three years post-Yolanda, and attempting to facilitate communitybuilding within the process of relocation and to move residents together collectively from temporary to permanent housing. Although not discussed in this paper, there are a wide range of other NGO and/or City coordinated housing reconstruction projects including various degrees of participatory and community-oriented approaches. This section focuses instead on two examples of Post-Yolanda housing reconstruction in Tacloban of contrasting scales and relocation distances, and at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of residents’ participation: 1) housing built by NHA, the largest share of houses provided; and 2) Pope Francis Village, a community-driven resettlement site supported by a consortium of NGOs independent from government. the substandard materials and construction. 5.2.2. Pope Francis Village: PCHR at Policy Scale, Community Scale, and Household Scale Independent from government and supported by the FRANCESCO 1 Consortium of NGOs, Pope Francis Village (PFV) is a planned resettlement project of 550 houses (Figure 4). In direct opposition to the idea of relocation to the north, PFV is located on privately acquired land close to downtown Tacloban and residents’ former living and working neighborhoods, and includes a planned farm and community garden to provide integrated livelihood opportunities. Unlike many other sites where beneficiary groups were assigned based by former neighborhood or temporary housing group, PFV beneficiaries were selected from Home Owners Associations throughout the Yolanda-affected areas. 1

Pope Francis for Resilient and Co-Empowered, Sustainable Communities (FRANCESCO) Consortium includes the following organizations: Urban Poor Associates (UPA), Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (CCO-DP), Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines- National Secretariat for Social Action (CBCP-NASSA), the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer (Redemptorist Community of Tacloban), and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Palo, Leyte (RCAP) [39].

Future residents were included in house and site planning, as well as building construction [36]. Three different housing unit designs were created for PFV through a participatory design workshop; unlike NHA housing, the PFV townhomes include a full 2nd floor and balconies (Figure 7) with total floor areas over 40m2. Although the townhouse design was selected to maximize space and construction, materials and building design features reflect residents’ own priorities. Towards the end of 2016, when the construction of NHA housing was rapidly speeding up due to political pressure, and construction of PFV was taking longer than initially planned, some PFV beneficiaries chose to change to the NHA housing according to interviews with community leaders and project organizers. 5.2.3 Build Back Better in Tacloban After Typhoon Yolanda, the Philippine government’s national recovery plan was entitled “Build Back Better: Reconstruction Assistance on Yolanda (RAY)” [37]; within the housing recovery sector, BBB aimed to ensure the rehabilitee of strong buildings able to withstand calamities [38]. RAY also emphasized the streamlined operational enforcement of “no build zones” [37]; although the national requirement to enforce no build zones was lifted, Tacloban City chose to enforce a NBZ ordinance [34]. Without people centered policies that support residents’ life recovery, there is no guarantee that their situation will be better after reconstruction. 5.3 Comparison of PCHR Factors in Merapi and Tacloban and Implications Table 2 shows aspects of PCHR discussed, at the scales of policy, community, and houses. Although all three cases are ostensibly based on BBB, only REKOMPAK and PFV demonstrate PCHR. Table 2. Comparison of Housing Recovery Cases and Relationship to PCHR Disaster Damage and Housing Recovery Oct. 2010 volcanic eruption of Mt. Merapi, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. • Affected communities: rural farming area. • Designated areas at risk from future volcanos. Community-based housing recovery program-REKOMPAK from government

Housing Reconstruction REKOMPAK supported new housing on site (out of hazard risk) or in resettlement areas. Approx. 3,000 houses built. 6x6 (36m2) meter core house design,

PCHR at policy scale YES. Project based on: resident participation in housing and site decisions. Program flexibility allows and multiple support options.

PCHR at community scale YES. Intensive resident participation in planning process and construction; expert (technical and facilitator) support provided

PCHR at house scale

Nov. 2013 Typhoon Yolanda in Tacloban City, Philippines • Affected communities and target beneficiaries: urban coastal areas; high poverty; informal settlers • Housing recovery focus: new housing in resettlement sites. • Reconstruction includes various combination of multiple actors/providers, (NGO/donor/gov’t.) coordinated by City

Largest number of houses (13,000+) will be provided by NHA; standard 5x4.5 m (22.5m2) townhouse design.

NO. Goal is to provide stronger houses--as a relief object without including people.

NO. No resident participation; but City encouraged communitybuilding.

NO. Houses built by contractors. Residents not included in design or construction.

550 houses planned in Pope Francis Village is a resettlement site close to the city center, around Sponsored by FRANCISCO NGO Consortium.

YES. Housing program designed to support residents’ needs (location/ livelihood); full ownership of residents in the process.

YES. Resident participation in decision making, (form home owners association) and construction

YES. Residents included in planning for house and site design, and included in construction.

YES. Residents involved in: with option to chose room configuration, and directly involved in construction

5.3.1 Policy-Relocation Experts agree that post-disaster relocation should be avoided if at all possible [9]. Although all three projects include housing relocation, the contexts, approaches and potential impacts vary greatly. In REKOMPAK Merapi, the distance of displacement was minimized (often 5 kilometers or less) (Figure 8), and most residents can continue to use former agricultural lands. In contrast, Tacloban City’s

enforcement of a no-build (later no dwelling) zone in coastal areas, combined with a focus on housing provision and relocation to the north, has created a heavy burden for survivors with very little economic capital moved to an area with few options for livelihood development (Figure 9). One of the main concepts behind Pope Francis Village is to provide a closer resettlement alternative. 5.3.2 Policy-housing provision methods As discussed earlier, housing advocates and international guidelines have long promoted housing as a tool to improve residents’ lives, and accordingly argued that instead of passive recipients of housing as relief objects, residents should be involved in the process [21]. However, NHA housing in Tacloban takes the form of objects provided to residents not included in decision-making or construction processes. Pope Francis Village represents the opposite, with residents at the center of all decisions and processes, as part of an integrated approach including livelihood promotion. Based on housing recovery experiences in Indonesia, REKOMPAK Merapi used community-based housing recovery support within a national government-driven reconstruction program. Like owner-driven housing reconstruction (ODR), proven successful internationally and locally after the 2006 Central Java Earthquake, REKOMPAK Merapi provided funds for building materials, along with technical advice, to resident groups who played a primary role in the rebuilding process. 5.3.3 Policy-resident’s choices In both Merapi and Tacloban, housing recovery projects have some degree of variety and flexibility, yet residents’ options to make their own choices vary. Outside the hazard zone, REKOMPAK Merapi provided several options for housing reconstruction including: on-site, independent or collective resettlement. With a significant component of relocation, housing recovery in Merapi included the provision of land in resettlement sites, or compensation for land that residents acquired themselves. In Tacloban, most residents are not able to chose for themselves between different options such as NHA or other City/NGO supported housing, as beneficiaries are mostly grouped by former area or temporary housing site, or recently selected (starting in late 20161) by random lottery. 5.3.4 Community and participation REKOMPAK Merapi and Pope Francis Village both focus on participatory planning and involvement of residents in decision-making related to housing and site design, while NHA housing did not involve residents in any aspect of these processes. In general, housing recovery in Merapi kept communities together, moving villagers collectively to temporary housing and then permanent resettlement sites. In Tacloban, while the City attempted to build community and keep neighbors together from temporary to permanent housing when possible, the large scale of the disaster and various pathways through the housing recovery process scattered residents to different resettlement sites. 5.3.5. House design and construction Residents’ involvement in design and construction of individual houses varies, although the three projects use similar construction: CMU block walls with reinforced concrete frames. In NHA housing in Tacloban, residents have no design options and limited ability to reconfigure or expand their houses, further constrained by the use of row houses. In Merapi, a standardized house design included some options for customizing room configurations, and while limited by lot size, residents can extend or modify their free standing core houses (Figures 1 and 2), including connecting shared spaces with neighboring families. Pope Francis Village uses a multi-story townhouse design as a way to minimize construction costs, but choices of housing design and materials/finishes (Figure 4) were made based on residents’ priorities. 6. Conclusion The term Build Back Better (BBB) has been widely used to describe the goals of recovery plans and projects, yet the specific meaning and application of BBB varies and is often unclear. In terms of housing relocation, there is also a potential for BBB to be interpreted narrowly, prioritizing avoidance of risk over other factors that support residents’ life and livelihood recovery. Although build back

better directly relates to the reconstruction of housing and settlements, interpretations of BBB have not been clearly defined in relation to other key principles of housing recovery. In both Merapi after the 2010 eruption and in Tacloban after 2013 Typhoon Yolanda, the largest number of housing units were provided through government support as part of recovery programs intended to reduce future disaster risk through the use of reinforced structures and relocation of housing away from natural hazards. With reinforced construction and safe locations, these houses could all meet the narrower interpretation of Build Back Better (BBB) as build back safer. However, when evaluated with the ideas of People Centered Housing Recovery, the differences between NHA housing, which doesn’t involve residents at all, compared to Pope Francis Village or REKOMPAK Merapi, which put community members at the center of all phases and processes becomes clear, as well as the potential factor of additional vulnerability caused by a lack of livelihood in Tacloban relocation projects with NHA housing. Integrating livelihoods and resident participation throughout the process, Pope Francis Village is the most ‘people-centered’ housing resettlement site in Tacloban as of now, however construction is still ongoing, and the project much overcome challenges related to the involvement of unskilled residents in the construction and the project schedule. Along with ‘participation’ in the recovery process, most recent literature on housing recovery postdisaster clearly supports the benefit of ‘putting people at the center of recovery.’ This paper defined ‘people-centered housing recovery’ as a framework with multiple aspects (policy, process, and housing form) applied to multiple scales (disaster area, community, and individual household). Although housing recovery policies in the cases discussed vary, as do the respective cultural and economic contexts, the framework of ‘people-centered housing recovery’ allows for a comparison of relevant aspects of each case study and the identification of respective strengths and weaknesses of different aspects of each project in terms of impacts on residents’ lives. Compared to BBB, People Centered Housing Recovery could therefore represent a more detailed way to consider and evaluate varied aspects of housing recovery projects. 6.1. The Question of Scale: Challenges and Potential of People Centered Housing Recovery As Lyons et al. [8] discussed, one key question about participatory and people centered housing reconstruction is how this approach can be adopted at larger scales. While in Merapi, a participatory approach has been applied for the entire REKOMPAK reconstruction project, the cases from Tacloban include 2 extremes—a smaller scale independent people-centered project (Pope Francis Village) in contrast to contractor-built housing provided by the national government (NHA) which represents the largest number of housing units in Tacloban. The smaller scale of NGO-driven projects such as Pope Francis Village demonstrate that it is possible for local residents to be involved in housing resettlement project from the planning to construction phases. However, the main housing provision still relies on contractor-driven housing construction by NHA without residents’ involvement. In order to achieve a better housing recovery for residents, there is still a critical need to bridge this gap between a demonstration pilot project like PFV and an equitable approach to housing reconstruction at the scale that can benefit all survivors, as in REKOMPAK Merapi, where PCHR became the main approach to reconstruction and included in the official recovery program. Acknowledgements This research was supported by JSPS Grants in Aid 16K18202, JSPS Grants-in-Aid 26420597 JSPS Grants-in-Aid 25871245, and JSPS Grants-in-Aid 16H05752. REFERENCES

[1] W.J. Clinton, Lessons Learned from Tsunami Recovery: Key Propositions for Building Back Better, United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery, United Nations, New York, 2006.

[2] James Lee Witt Associates, Building Back Better and Safer: Private Sector Summit on PostTsunami Reconstruction, James Lee Witt Associates, Washington, DC, 2005. [3] L. Fan, Disaster as opportunity? Building Back Better in Aceh, Myanmar and Haiti, Overseas Development Institute, 2013. [4] Pakistan’s Earthquake Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA), http://www.erra.pk/, 2016 (accessed 16.03.23). [5] Government of Nepal (GoN) National Planning Commission, Post Disaster Needs Assessment, Kathmandu, 2015. [6] UNISDR, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, http://www.unisdr.org/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf, 2015 (accessed 17.08.19). [7] J. Kennedy, J. Ashmore, E. Babister, and I. Kelman, The Meaning of ‘Build Back Better’: Evidence From Post-Tsunami Aceh and Sri Lanka, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 24–36, Mar. 2008. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5973.2008.00529.x. [8] M. Lyons and T. Schilderman, Eds., Building Back Better: Delivering People-centred Housing Reconstruction at Scale, Practical Action, Rugby UK, 2010. doi:10.3362/9781780440064. [9] A. Jha, Safer Homes, Stronger Communities: A Handbook for Reconstructing after Natural Disasters, World Bank, 2010. [10] J.D. Barenstein, Housing reconstruction in post-earthquake Gujarat, Humanitarian Practice Network Paper, no. 54, 2006. [11] J.L. Monday, Building Back Better: Creating a Sustainable Community after Disaster’, Natural Hazards Informer, 3, (2002) 1–12. [12] S. Mannakkara and S. Wilkinson, Re-conceptualising "Building Back Better" to Improve PostDisaster Recovery, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, vol. 7, no. 3 (2014) 327– 341. doi:10.1108/ijmpb-10-2013-0054. [13] WCDRR Issue Brief, “Reconstructing after disasters: Build back better” for the Ministerial Roundtable at the World Conference of Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015. http://www.wcdrr.org/uploads/Reconstructing-after-disasters-Build-back-better.pdf, 2015 (accessed 17.4.17). [14] B.Wisner, P. Blaikie, T. Cannon, and I. Davis, At Risk: Natural Hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters, second ed., Routledge, London, 2004. doi:10.4324/9780203428764. [15] United Nations Development Program (UNDP), People-centred Development: Empowered lives. Resilient nations, 2011. [16] J.F.C. Turner, Housing by People: Towards Autonomy in Building Environments, Marion Boyers, London, (1976). [17] UN General Assembly, Habitat: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, 16 December 1976, A/RES/31/109, http://www.refworld.org/docid/3b00f03758.html, 1976 (accessed 17.4.11). [18] I. Davis, (Ed.) Disasters and the Small Dwelling, Pergamon, Oxford, 1981. [19] United Nations Disaster Relief Organization (UNDRO), Shelter after Disaster, Guidelines for Assistance, 1982 [20] D. Korten, Third Generation NGO Strategies: A Key to People-centered Development, World Development, Vol. 15, (1987) 145-159. [21] IFRC and OCHA, Shelter after Disaster, 2nd Edition, http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Documents/Secretariat/201506/Shelter_After_Disaster_2nd_Edition.pdf, 2015 (accessed 17.04.17). [22] UN Habitat, Shelter and Housing: UN HABITAT in Disaster and Conflict Contexts, 2011. [23] L. Lankatilleke, The people’s process: The viability of an international approach, in: M. Lyons and T. Schilderman (Eds.), Building Back Better: Delivering People-centred Housing Reconstruction at Scale, Practical Action, Rugby, UK, 2010, pp. 63-73. doi.org/10.3362/9781780440064.004 [24] T. Schilderman, Putting people at the centre of reconstruction, in: M. Lyons and T. Schilderman, Eds., Building Back Better: Delivering People-centred Housing Reconstruction at Scale, Practical Action, Rugby UK, 2010, pp. 7–37. doi:10.3362/9781780440064.002. [25] Sphere Project, Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response, http://spherehandbook.org/, 2011 (accessed 16.08.31). doi.org/10.3362/9781908176202

[26] United Nations Disaster Relief Organization (UNDRO), Shelter after Disaster, Guidelines for Assistance, 1982. [27] S.R. Arnstein, A Ladder of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, no. 4, July 1969, 216–224. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225. [28] M.B.G. Choguill, A ladder of community participation for underdeveloped countries, Habitat International 20(3), 1996, 431–444. doi:10.1016/0197-3975(96)00020-3. [29] C.H. Davidson, C. Johnson, G. Lizarralde, N. Dikmen, and A. Sliwinski, Truths and myths about community participation in post-disaster housing projects, Habitat International, 31(1), 2007, 100-115. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2006.08.003. [30] S. Arshad, and S. Athar, Rural Housing Reconstruction Program Post-2005 Earthquake Learning from the Pakistan Experience: A Manual for Post-Disaster Housing Program Managers, The World Bank, Washington D.C., 2013. [31] V. Thiruppugazh, Positioning Stakeholders within Owner-Driven Post-Disaster Reconstruction Approaches: Gujarat, India Following the 2001 Earthquake, in: P. Daly, P. and M. Feener, (Eds.), Rebuilding Asia Following Natural Disasters: Approaches to Reconstruction in the Asia-Pacific Region. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge, 2016. doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139683548 [32] E. Maly, K. Iuchi, and A. Nareswari, Community-based Housing Reconstruction and Relocation: REKOMPAK program after the 2010 Eruption of Mt. Merapi, Indonesia, Institute of Social Safety Science Journal, 27, 2015, 205-214. [33] Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), Institutionalizing Post-Disaster Recovery: Learning from Mentawai Tsunami and Merapi Eruption--Recovery Framework Case Study, 2014. [34] K. Iuchi and E. Maly, Residential Relocation Processes in Coastal Areas: Tacloban City after Typhoon Yolanda, in: A. Sapat, and A-M. Esnard, (Eds.), Coming Home after Disaster: Multiple Dimensions of Housing Recovery, Routledge, Boca Raton, 2016. [35] Tacloban City Housing and Community Development Office, Resettlement Update in Tacloban City as of January 13, 2017. [36] E. Maly, and K. Iuchi, The Role of NGOs in Post-Disaster Housing Provision for a People Centered Recovery, Conference Paper presented at the 11th International Symposium on Architectural Interchanges in Asia (ISAIA), Sept. 21, 2016. [37] National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), Reconstruction Assistance On Yolanda: Build Back Better, NEDA, Manila, 2013. [38] A.M.A. Karaos, Compendium of Permanent Housing Interventions in Post-Yolanda Rehabilitation in Eastern Visayas, Philippines, UNDP, 2017. [39] Pope Francis for Resilient and Co-Empowered, Sustainable Communities (FRANCESCO) Blog, http://francescomodelcommunity.blogspot.jp/, 2016 (accessed 17.04.17).