Comparing three approaches to developing concentrated rural settlement after the Lushan Earthquake

Safety Science 125 (2020) 104626

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/safety

Comparing three approaches to developing concentrated rural settlement after the Lushan Earthquake

T

⁎

Tingting Yanga, Lin Wanga,b, , Lifang Huanga a b

Faculty of Construction Management and Real Estate, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, PR China Research Center for Construction Economy and Management, Chongqing University, Chongqing 40045, China

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Concentrated rural settlement (CRS) Housing reconstruction Natural disaster recovery Wenchuan Earthquake Lushan Earthquake

Housing reconstruction is critical following natural disasters, especially in rural areas of developing countries. Concentrated rural settlement (CRS) is an important method adopted by local governments in China to promote post-disaster rural housing recovery. However, the effectiveness and selection of CRS approaches under different situations often puzzles local governments, even though various approaches to CRS development have been available since the Wenchuan Earthquake on May 12, 2008. This study therefore compares three approaches to developing CRS (unified planning/unified reconstruction, unified planning/joint reconstruction, and unified planning/self-reconstruction), based on three case studies in Lushan County of Ya’an City in Sichuan Province of China. The factors considered include the triggering event, participants, process, and outcome. Research information and data were collected using interviews, a questionnaire survey, and content analysis. The comparison reveals a transformation from a government-led pattern to a resident-led pattern in the rural housing reconstruction after the Lushan Earthquake. When comparing the effectiveness of these three approaches, each approach must be considered according to its prerequisites to ensure the sustainability of reconstruction. Based on the comparative analysis, the study also offers a map for future initiatives, providing valuable insights for local governments to develop sustainable CRS in post-disaster reconstruction.

1. Introduction Housing reconstruction to post-disaster reconstruction is critical that has long-term impacts on victims’ lives (Islam et al., 2018). Poor reconstruction can lead to instability, vulnerability, and poverty, as is often evident in developing countries (Comerio, 1998). Moreover, for rural areas, post-disaster reconstruction provides a rare opportunity to build better and more resilient communities (Yi and Yang, 2014). Postdisaster housing reconstruction in rural areas is thus an important concern, given the unevenness of urban-rural development (Peng et al., 2018b). Earthquakes are common in China which cause extensive loss of property and human life (Zhu and Sun, 2017). After the Wenchuan Earthquake on May 12, 2008, the Chinese government began exploring various approaches to rural housing reconstruction (Zhang et al., 2018) and, in particular, the potential for the development of concentrated rural settlement (CRS) as part of the post-disaster recovery (Peng et al., 2018b). More than 200 billion yuan was invested in housing reconstruction after the Wenchuan Earthquake. Nevertheless, many problems have been reported, such as inadequate awareness of the housing

⁎

reconstruction approach, insufficient consideration of the specific prerequisites for housing reconstruction, unscientific CRS planning, and a lack of resident participation (Peng et al., 2018a; Xia, 2013; Zhang and Zhang, 2009). These problems have not been solved. Instead, they have resulted in excessive reconstruction and resource waste, resident dissatisfaction with housing designs and CRS, and a lack of economic development (Peng, 2015; Xia, 2013; Zhang and Zhang, 2009). After the Lushan Earthquake on April 20, 2013, the Chinese government sought to learn from the experiences and problems in rural housing reconstruction following the Wenchuan Earthquake. Three dominant approaches were identified as general principles (GOV, 2013) to guide CRS development: unified planning/unified reconstruction (UPUR), unified planning/joint reconstruction (UPJR), and unified planning/self-reconstruction (UPSR). However, these general principles cannot be used directly, because there is no specific housing reconstruction planning at the village level (Peng et al., 2014). Local governments thus have insufficient information for how to implement these three approaches, nor do they have access to evidence for which approach is most suitable. Moreover, few studies have investigated or compared these three approaches. As a result, the problems have

Corresponding author at: Faculty of Construction Management and Real Estate, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400045, PR China. E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104626 Received 27 December 2018; Accepted 26 December 2019 0925-7535/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Safety Science 125 (2020) 104626

T. Yang, et al.

with post-earthquake reconstruction was higher for relocated families than for in-situ reconstruction. Dunford and Li (2011) examined housing reconstruction in rural Wenchuan. They found that ownerdriven reconstruction led to substantial increases in household indebtedness. Peng (2015) compared two approaches to CRS development after the Wenchuan Earthquake. The results indicated that neither approach is ideal: rural victims’ willingness, government organization, and community management are important for sustainable CRS development. This research suggests that despite investigations into post-disaster housing reconstruction, there is little consensus over which approach has the best outcomes for affected populations. Furthermore, very little is known about the three different approaches to CRS development and construction in particular, despite the fact that such approaches were widely adopted following the Lushan Earthquake and were recommended in the general principles for post-disaster reconstruction. To fill that research gap, this paper (1) compares the three approaches to CRS development from the perspectives of the triggering event, participants, process, and outcome; (2) measures the effectiveness of the three approaches; (3) identifies sustainability issues for all three approaches; and (4) provides a map for promoting CRS development during post-disaster reconstruction.

continued to puzzle Lushan officials, who have been unable to determine which approach would be the most effective disaster response and what its prerequisites should be. This lack of knowledge has highlighted these problems and hampered the sustainability of CRS development for future rural post-disaster contexts in China. Fortunately, the three approaches were reported to have been successfully implemented in Lushan County. With this mind, the present study examines three case studies in Lushan County’s post-disaster recovery to compare the three approaches to CRS development, based on factors such as the triggering event, participants, process, and outcome. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature on post-disaster housing reconstruction approaches. Section 3 provides an overview of the Wenchuan and Lushan earthquakes and the three post-earthquake reconstruction approaches. Section 4 introduces the comparative analysis and data collection procedures. Section 5 compares different aspects of the three cases: the triggering event, participants, process, and outcome. The results are discussed in Section 6. Finally, Section 7 presents the conclusions. 2. Literature review Two primary approaches have been adopted to conduct the postdisaster housing reconstruction by governments, namely donor-driven reconstruction (DDR) approach and owner-driven reconstruction (ODR) approach. DDR, also known as contractor-driven reconstruction, is typically controlled by a donor or a government agency that takes full responsibility for affected households and enlists the services of a contractor to undertake reconstruction works (Andrew et al., 2013). Considered to be the easiest and quickest way to provide housing on a large scale to affected communities, governments have generally adopted the DDR approach in the post-disaster housing reconstruction (Powell, 2011). However, DDR suffers a great weakness that it offers limited involvement of the beneficiaries in the reconstruction processes (Lyons, 2009). This can lead to culturally inappropriate housing layout and design, and dissatisfaction among housing recipients (Oliver-Smith, 1991). The ODR approach has attracted significant attention since the 2001 earthquake in Gujarat, such as from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC, 2006), which consider participation to be a primary objective of post-disaster reconstruction. In the ODR approach, affected households reconstruct destroyed homes with financial assistance from the government (Powell, 2011). Participation in reconstruction provides a sense of control, which is beneficial to satisfaction improvement with the reconstructed house and psychological recovery (Lyons, 2009). However, ODR can present problems for vulnerable populations, who may not have the skills needed to manage the reconstruction (Abhas, 2010). A few researchers have also examined relocation and in-situ reconstruction approaches. For example, Manatunge and Abeysinghe (2017) recognized that the in-situ reconstruction approach has several advantages, such as minimizing the disruption to community relationships and avoiding the costs of acquiring resettlement sites. In-situ approach has therefore become the preferred option for post-disaster reconstruction (Peng et al., 2018b). However, it is argued to waste useful land-based resources and sustain poor living conditions (Peng et al., 2014). In addition, the findings show that the relocation approach helps families gain better access to public services and significantly improves the quality of their lives (Araya et al., 2011; Peng et al., 2018b). Relocation is necessary to move vulnerable communities away from dangerous locations, or when more than 50% of the houses in a village have been destroyed (Oliver-Smith, 1991; Samaddar et al., 2017). Nevertheless, Badri et al. (2006) argued that relocated families face difficult employment and income challenges. Some research has considered rural housing reconstruction after the Wenchuan Earthquake. Liu et al. (2017) studied the relocation and insitu reconstruction approaches. The results showed that satisfaction

3. Two earthquakes and three alternative post-earthquake reconstruction approaches A massive 8.0 magnitude earthquake occurred in Wenchuan County in Sichuan Province, China on May 12, 2008. More than 69,000 people were confirmed dead, 17,923 were declared missing, and an additional 374,644 were injured (Huafeng, 2016). Lushan County suffered heavy losses from the Wenchuan Earthquake and ranked as one of the worst hit areas. Five years later, the County was hit again, by the 7.0-magnitude Lushan Earthquake. Fig. 1 shows the locations of the Wenchuan and Lushan earthquakes. Lushan County was the only area severely affected by the Lushan Earthquake. Approximately 13,171 rural houses were destroyed and 12,519 homes were badly affected. Lushan County is a poor mountainous county with a weak economic foundation (Zhang et al., 2016). The Lushan Earthquake occurred before the Wenchuan Earthquake reconstruction was completed. This situation severely impeded its capacity to recover after the earthquakes. In the wake of these twinned disasters, the county implemented two plans for post-earthquake recovery. Local officials thus gained significant experience in post-disaster reconstruction. Lushan County therefore serves as a strong case for examining different approaches to post-disaster housing reconstruction. Following the Lushan Earthquake, the government presented three dominant approaches to developing CRS. (I) The UPUR approach. In this approach, the government performed all of the work to develop CRS. The government acted as the representative of the owners, selecting the contractor to undertake housing and infrastructure reconstruction. The residents paid the government for their houses at a consensus price. Then, the government paid the contractor for the houses and infrastructure. After the construction was complete, the houses were allocated to residents based on a special set of rules. (II) The UPJR approach. In this approach, the government completed the CRS planning, housing design, and infrastructure construction. Residents constructed the houses. To expedite the construction and standardize the style, residents selected a satisfactory contractor from several that had been authorized by the government. The price of a house was negotiated and determined by the residents and contractor. After the CRS was completed, the houses were allocated to residents based on a special set of rules. (III) The UPSR approach. In this approach, the government implemented the CRS planning, designed the houses’ appearances, 2

Safety Science 125 (2020) 104626

T. Yang, et al.

Fig. 1. The locations of the Wenchuan and Lushan earthquakes. Source: Xu et al. 2013.

approaches, was prepared by reviewing news reports on rural housing reconstruction after the Lushan Earthquake. Six sites in Lushan County were extensively reported to have been successfully implemented. Local government officials and planners then were invited to suggest other possible case studies, and three other CRS initiatives were recommended. The resulting list of nine sites were identified and assessed using pilot surveys to examine the nature of the reconstruction and the physical accessibility of the site. Two residents and one local government official from each site were interviewed during a pilot survey, conducted in October 2017. Three sites, each representing a specific reconstruction approach, were selected as case studies and are presented in Table 1.

and constructed the infrastructure. House construction was completed by the residents themselves. Before building the house, the house location was allocated to residents based on a special set of rules. The residents were free to decide the contractor, housing cost, and room layout. When the housing construction was completed, the government selected a contractor to build the infrastructure and decorate the exteriors. 4. Research methodology 4.1. Comparative perspectives This study analyzes how various factors affect different approaches to CRS development, including the triggering event, participants, process, and outcome. The triggering event is important factor for understanding CRS development and why a given approach was selected (Peng, 2015). Understanding the role of participants in CRS development also facilitates successful implementation in post-disaster reconstruction and helps explain why CRS is effective (Badri et al., 2006). The implementation process is also important for analyzing the different approaches to CRS, as it impacts how sustainable and resilient the outcomes are (Samaddar et al., 2017). Finally, understanding outcomes is necessary to evaluating the effectiveness and success of a given housing reconstruction approach. Housing costs, the duration of CRS building, and resident satisfaction are critical indicators of the success of post-disaster housing reconstruction (Lyons, 2009).

4.3. Data collection To achieve the study goals, interviews, a questionnaire survey, and content analysis were used for data collection. Interviews were conducted with village heads, local government officials, residents, and planners working on the three sites in November 2017. Table 2 displays the background information of the interview. Each interview lasted approximately 1.5–2 h. There were five parts to each interview. The first part elicited the basic information of the case studies (see Table 1 for details). The interviewees were then asked why CRS was implemented and why a particular reconstruction approach was selected. Interviewees were also asked to complete a table evaluating the participation level at each phase of the CRS development. During the fourth part of the interview, the interviewees were asked to describe the CRS development process and to discuss how each step was implemented. The final part of the interview focused on problems encountered during the reconstruction process. A questionnaire survey was conducted to survey the degree to which residents were satisfied with the CRS development. This survey was pretested on a sample of 10 households at each site; modifications were completed to improve the questionnaire. In December 2017,

4.2. Case selection A case study method was used to compare the three approaches to CRS development. Case studies can be useful in learning lessons from emergency situations and improving disaster risk reduction (Aini and Fakhrulrazi, 2010). Case studies of different CRS development approaches were selected using a comprehensive procedure. First, a tentative list of CRS initiatives, representing different reconstruction 3

Safety Science 125 (2020) 104626

T. Yang, et al.

Table 1 Case studies. Source: Interviews. Case

Shiyang

Qiaoai

Baihuo

Approach of Reconstruction Total population Total households Total laborers Migrant workers Impact of Earthquake

Unified planning/unified reconstruction 846 216 323 68 123 houses were completely destroyed and 58 badly damaged. 1 death was reported. 1 injury was reported.

Unified planning/joint reconstruction 840 216 475 360 127 houses were completely destroyed and 53 were badly damaged. No deaths were reported. 9 injuries were reported.

Unified planning/self-reconstruction 289 81 167 124 75 houses were completely destroyed; 6 were badly damaged. No deaths were reported. 12 injuries were reported.

build wooden houses for several reasons. For one, building wooden houses was a local custom, and residents were used to living in wooden homes. They had also planted trees extensively, thereby providing wood for house reconstruction. Furthermore, compared to houses made of reinforced concrete, wooden houses cost less. Finally, the wooden houses were beneficial for post-disaster rural eco-tourism. Despite these preferences, the UPJR approach required reinforced concrete houses. Rather than selecting a contractor, the residents negotiated with relevant stakeholders and wound up building the houses themselves in settlement.

approximately 60 to 70 households at each site were randomly selected to complete the questionnaire survey face-to-face; each survey took approximately 30 min. Overall, 187 valid responses were obtained. Finally, the village head and local government officials confirmed relevant interview and questionnaire survey results. Moreover, secondhand data, such as government documents and news reports about reconstruction, were also gathered to verify information obtained from the interviews and survey.

5. Results 5.2. Participants

5.1. Triggering events

The most important participants in CRS development include government working groups, residents, and experts. Table 4 presents participation level among different groups at each phase of the three sites. Government working groups represent the government’s interests in rural housing reconstruction. At the Shiyang and Qiaoai sites, the government working group participated in almost all CRS development activities, as shown in Table 4. However, at the Baihuo site, the government working group had only limited involvement in some parts of the CRS development. Residents were beneficiaries of reconstructed houses. After the Wenchuan and Lushan Earthquakes, residents had significant concerns about housing quality and hoped to participate in the reconstruction. As is consistent with guidelines stipulating the participation of affected communities in disaster recovery, a special village affair board (SVAB) was established for the Qiaoai and Baihuo sites. SVAB members were elected by the local residents and mainly included community members who could manage housing construction and who were trusted by other residents. At the Baihuo site, the SVAB participated in all CRS development activities. However, at the Qiaoai site, the SVAB was primarily responsible for housing reconstruction, as shown in Table 4. Relevant experts were also important participants in the reconstruction process, providing scientific planning and technical guidance during reconstruction. Before any planning took place, the residents’ needs were presented to the experts. The experts then provided alternative schemes for CRS planning. Residents selected one from the three alternative schemes, and provided recommendations to the experts, who then made further modifications to satisfy residents’ concerns. This iterative process enhanced participation, making CRS planning both satisfactory and scientific.

Different triggers were found to correlate with the rationales for selecting specific approaches to CRS development. Table 3 lists the events that triggered CRS developments and the approach chosen for each site. In Shiyang, the reasons for choosing CRS development and the UPUR approach were as follows. First, the Shiyang site’s location was an important trigger, as it is situated within an already developed urban area, close to the center of Lushan County, as shown in Fig. 2. Almost all of the residents in the Shiyang were living close to the center of Lushan County before the Lushan Earthquake. After the earthquake, the government implemented post-earthquake recovery guideline and initiated an enlargement of the county’s central area. The rural houses within the planning area therefore were demolished. To use land resources more efficiently, a plot of land in enlarged areas was set aside for concentrated settlement. Second, residents were unable to rebuild their houses due to their work obligations and a national policy that forbids rebuilding their own houses within urban areas. Most residents of the Shiyang had jobs in urban areas, which impeded their ability to rebuild houses. As such, residents wanted the government to undertake housing reconstruction. In Qiaoai, the government and residents considered the government’s burden, resident participation, the limited available funds, and the permanent housing quality and ultimately selected the UPJR approach. Residents could build their own houses, given that the Qiaoai was not located in an urban area. To reduce the government’s burden and engage resident participation in housing reconstruction, the Lushan government required residents to construct houses. The government completed the other reconstruction. With constrained funds to build infrastructure, the government implemented CRS to complete reconstruction. To unify the style and save time with standardized construction, the residents selected a satisfactory contractor to complete the housing reconstruction. In Baihuo, a field study was used to guide CRS implementation. A Lushan County official conducted a field study to determine the best reconstruction approach for the village and found it appropriate to implement CRS according to a UPSR approach. Similar to the Qiaoai, Baihuo is not in an urban area; residents were thus able to build their houses. Unlike the Qiaoai, however, residents of the Baihuo wanted to

5.3. Process The three cases underwent a similar implementation process, but there were also differences at certain stages. Fig. 3 identifies four stages of the CRS development process: preparation, planning, building, and community management. The three approaches involve similar steps in the preparation, planning, and community management stages, as shown in the middle column of Fig. 3. The steps in the building stage for 4

5

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7

B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7

Baihuo

16 Nov. 2017 16 Nov. 2017 17 Nov. 2017 17 Nov. 2017 17 Nov. 2017 18 Nov. 2017 18 Nov. 2017

13 Nov. 2017 13 Nov. 2017 14 Nov. 2017 14 Nov. 2017 14 Nov. 2017 15 Nov. 2017 15 Nov. 2017

22 Nov. 2017 22 Nov. 2017 22 Nov. 2017 23 Nov. 2017

S5 S6 S7 S8

Qiaoai

20 Nov. 2017 20 Nov. 2017 21 Nov. 2017 21 Nov. 2017

S1 S2 S3 S4

Shiyang

Time

Interviewee

Case

home home home home

Village office Village head 's home Village office Resident's home Resident's home Resident's home Public square

Village head 's home Village office Resident's home Resident's home Public square Public square Public square

Resident's Resident's Resident's Resident's

Village office Village office Village office Resident's home

Venue

Table 2 Background information of the involved interviewees.

Branch secretary Village head Planner Farmer Farmer Farmer Farmer

Village head Planner Farmer Farmer Farmer Farmer Farmer

Farmer Farmer Businessman Teacher

Village head Branch secretary Senior Planner Farmer

Job title

20 12 5 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.

20 6 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.

N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.

31 8 33 N.A.

Years of relevant experience with housing construction

Bachelor High school Bachelor Primary school Middle school Primary school Middle school

Bachelor Bachelor Primary school High school Primary school Middle school Middle school

Primary school High school High school Bachelor

Bachelor Bachelor Bachelor Middle school

Education level

Organization and management in the whole process Organization and management in the whole process Planning Participating in all the work to develop CRS Participating in all the work to develop CRS Participating in all the work to develop CRS Participating in all the work to develop CRS

Organization and management in the whole process Planning Participating in select contractors; housing building; Participating in select contractors; housing building; Participating in select contractors; housing building; Participating in select contractors; housing building; Participating in select contractors; housing building;

housing housing housing housing housing

allocation allocation allocation allocation allocation

Organization and management in the whole process Organization and management in the whole process Planning Participating in site selection, housing design; infrastructure planning; housing allocation Participating in site selection, housing design and building; housing allocation Participating in site selection, housing design and building; housing allocation Participating in site selection, housing design; housing allocation Participating in housing design; housing allocation

Major responsibility

T. Yang, et al.

Safety Science 125 (2020) 104626

Safety Science 125 (2020) 104626

T. Yang, et al.

Table 3 Summary of events that triggered CRS development and the selected approach. Case

Triggering events

Shiyang

Long-term planning of Lushan County. Centralized reconstruction saved land. The national policy prohibited people from building their own houses in urban areas. Most residents had little time to rebuild their houses due to work obligations. The village government had limited funds to rebuild infrastructure. Centralized reconstruction reduced costs associated with the infrastructure. Residents wanted to participate in housing reconstruction to ensure quality. The village government had limited funds to rebuild infrastructure. Residents could provide wood for reconstruction and wanted to build the houses by themselves.

Qiaoai Baihuo

to the pre-disaster conditions. All three sites provided new public spaces, where residents could communicate with each other and exercise, as shown in Fig. 5. At the Baihuo and Qiaoai sites, garden was planned for every household to grow vegetables, thereby accommodating local traditions, as shown in Fig. 6. In all three cases, most residents moved away from traditional rural life. At the Shiyang site, most residents began working in urban areas after the government repurposed the land for reconstruction. At the Baihuo and Qiaoai sites, companies rent most contracted land, with the rent allocated to the villagers. Nevertheless, many residents cannot rely on the meager income provided by land circulation to pay off the debts incurred by the reconstruction while working far from home. This high proportion of migrant workers has caused an empty nest effect. Residents at all three sites reported high levels of satisfaction with the CRS development. Table 5 shows that more than 50% of survey households across these three cases expressed satisfaction with the development. However, there were also significant differences across the three cases (Sig. < 0.001). The dissatisfaction rate at the Qiaoai site was higher than at the other two sites. Only in Qiaoai did any resident express that there were “not at all satisfied” with the CRS development, and none were completely satisfied. There were also differences in satisfaction with different aspects of the development. Fig. 7 shows that CRS site selection, CRS layout, and housing allocation or location were factors that most residents were satisfied with; however, satisfaction with daily community management was generally lower. Satisfaction with selected contractor, reconstruction funds management, building material quality, permanent house quality, and the number and size of

the UPUR and the UPJR approaches are essentially the same, as presented in the left column. The special steps in the building stage for the UPSR approach are presented in the right column. In the building stage for the UPSR approach, the most difficult and critical step was allocating house locations. At the Baihuo site, a method was proposed whereby residents without land in the new settlement could exchange with people that did have land in the new location. In addition, residents with land in the CRS received preference in obtaining a house location, while others were determined by lottery. This method proved effective.

5.4. Outcome The outcomes of the three cases were different. Fig. 4 shows the CRS layouts for the select cases. All three involved the construction of single houses. Only two-story houses were constructed in Qiaoai and Baihuo, whereas two-, three-, and four-story houses were constructed in Shiyang. In Qiaoai and Shiyang, the residents paid 1030 yuan for each square meter; in Baihuo the cost was approximately 750 yuan. In Baihuo, housing construction took 10 months to complete, while the infrastructure and exterior decoration required an additional three months. Building CRS in Qiaoai required a total of 20 months, and in Shiyang it took 15 months. The total building time in Qiaoai was the longest of the three cases, as housing construction was completed in two phases and construction was stopped for a period to rectify a quality issue with the bricks. The living environment and infrastructure were improved compared

Fig. 2. Satellite images of three case CRS locations. Source: http://www.1010earth.com/realChina.html, accessed on 15 March 2018. 6

Safety Science 125 (2020) 104626

● ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ● ● ● ● ● ●

6. Discussion

● ● ● ♢ ● ○

Government working group Residents

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ♢ ♢ ○ ○ ○

● ○

Government working group

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ♢

CRS development stage

Determining the CRS development approach Site selection for CRS Infrastructure planning for the concentration site Housing planning and exterior design Determining the number and size of rooms Select contractors Reconstruction funds management Controlling the quality of building materials Supervising the quality of permanent houses Determining the approach to allocate houses/ house location Allocating houses/ house location Daily community management

● ♢

Qiaoai

6.2. Effectiveness of these three approaches to developing CRS This research indicates that the outcome of CRS development is influenced by the reconstruction approaches. The Shiyang site’s UPUR approach reported the highest satisfaction among residents (84%), as displayed in Table 5. A likely reason for this is that this approach satisfies residents’ willingness for the government to undertake housing reconstruction. In addition, compared to the Qiaoai and Baihuo sites, all of the work to develop CRS in Shiyang was completed by the construction bureau professionals appointed by the government. As a result, construction and management were more professional. The

● Complete participation. ○ Moderate participation. ♢ None.

● ● ● ● ● ○ ○ ○ ○ ●

The results show that the three sites have both differences and similarities with respect to the triggering event, participants, process, and outcomes, all of which affected the evolution of the different approaches. UPUR was the original approach to CRS and was widely adopted following the Wenchuan Earthquake, including in Lushan County. In this approach, the government built the houses and provided them to members of disaster-stricken communities for free. However, this “turnkey” approach created problems, such as by increasing the government’s burden, causing a lack of community participation and triggering new social contradictions (Peng et al., 2018a; Samaddar et al., 2017). Therefore, after the Lushan Earthquake, the guidelines (SCGOV, 2015) for post-disaster reconstruction changed to emphasize increased community participation, reducing the leading role of the government. Based on these guidelines, Lushan governments used this approach only in a partner assistance model or when building CRS in urban areas. Nevertheless, the government invited residents to participate in the decision-making process to enhance their sense of ownership in the project. The UPJR approach is similar, but separates housing construction from CRS development. This change also transforms the organizational pattern of housing reconstruction. For example, at the Qiaoai site, the residents selected a contractor to complete the housing reconstruction, while other reconstruction was completed by the government. To ensure housing quality, an SVAB was established to represent the community in the housing reconstruction process (see Table 4). Under the UPSR approach, instead of selecting a contractor, the residents completed the housing reconstruction themselves. Moreover, given the critical role that the SVAB would play in the reconstruction, at the Baihuo site, the SVAB was established at the preparation stage, ensuring its participation in the overall CRS development, as shown in Table 4. The three approaches analyzed here thus represent an evolution in CRS development. This evolution highlights the transformation in rural housing recovery policy that from the Wenchuan Earthquake to the Lushan Earthquake, reflecting a shift from government-led to residentled processes. This transformation manifests the government’s recognition that residents should play a more significant role in postdisaster reconstruction. In practice, such participatory models entail inviting residents to participate in decision making and separating housing reconstruction from CRS development, such that residents can be involved in the physical construction. This enables residents to express their aspirations, reach consensus on reconstruction, and ultimately increase their satisfaction with the development, which are critical for sustainable post-disaster reconstruction (Sadiqi et al., 2016; Vallance, 2015).

● ●

♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ○ ○ ♢ ○ ○ ♢

● ● ● ● ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ○ ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

6.1. Evolution of these three approaches to developing CRS

♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ♢ ● ● ● ● ♢

Government working group

rooms at the Baihuo site was significantly higher than the other two cases. Residents of the Shiyang site were more satisfied with the infrastructural development than residents of the Qiaoai and Baihuo sites.

Shiyang Case

Table 4 Level of participation during different phases of CRS development for each site.

Special village affair board

Other residents

Baihuo

Special village affair board

Other residents

T. Yang, et al.

7

Safety Science 125 (2020) 104626

T. Yang, et al.

Unified planning/unified reconstruction Unified planning/joint reconstruction

Common Steps

Unified planning/self-reconstruction

Post-disaster damage assessment Stage 1Preparation of CRS Determing the approach

Site selectin for CRS Housing planning and design

Infrastructure planning for the concentration site

Stage 2Planning of CRS

Project application

Select contractors

Allocating house location

Building houses and infrastructure

Building houses

Wall decoration

Check the houses

Quality check of CRS

Building infrastructure

Allocating houses

Wall decoration

Interior decoration

Interior decoration

Moving into the CRS Issuing property right certificates

Daily community management

Stage 3Building CRS

Stage 4Community management Economic development

Fig. 3. Implementation process for CRS development in the three sites. Note: The processes “Select contractors” for the UPUR and the UPJR approaches happen at the same stage but are different for each approach. In the UPUR approach the government selects the contractor to undertake housing and infrastructure reconstruction, whereas in the UPJR approach residents select a satisfactory contractor from several that have been authorized by the government.

the number and size of rooms. These were all determined by the residents themselves. This finding is similar to that of Vahanvati and Mulligan (2017), who assessed post-disaster reconstruction projects (self-reconstruction and collaborative work) and found that the community was satisfied with all aspects of the rebuilt houses. Coordination and mutual help during the housing reconstruction process has also enabled the residents of Baihuo to live more harmoniously in their settlement. The UPSR approach has clear advantages in improving resident satisfaction in terms of housing reconstruction and promoting a harmonious relationship between residents. However, specific requirements should be considered to ensure the sustainability of reconstruction. For example, residents may provide materials for construction and express their willingness to engage in self-reconstruction. Therefore, each approach can satisfy specific requirements and has its applicability. This finding is similar to that of Peng (2015), who opined CRS development approach should be selected based on local conditions.

outcomes, such as reasonable layout, adequate infrastructure, and high quality of permanent house (27% of surveyed households remained neutral because of their limited insight into housing quality) have achieved the residents’ recognition. However, the housing quality problem in Qiaoai and the inadequate infrastructure in Baihuo have reduced residents’ satisfaction with CRS development. Therefore, despite there being less resident participation in the UPUR approach, this method may achieve a higher level of residents’ satisfaction because of satisfying residents’ willingness and producing high quality deliverables. However, participation influenced residents’ satisfaction with house building. No participation and limited insight caused residents in Shiyang to remain neutral about the selected contractor (47%), reconstruction funds management (72%), and building material quality (58%). Compared with Shiyang, Qiaoai had higher satisfaction in these aspects, because residents were involved in. SVAB also regularly publicized reconstruction funds to make it transparent. Thus, fewer residents remained neutral in the selected contractor (7%), reconstruction funds management (21%), and building material quality (13%). In Baihuo, participation significantly improved the residents’ satisfaction with these aspects, moreover, with the permanent house quality, and

8

Safety Science 125 (2020) 104626

T. Yang, et al.

(a) Shiyang site

(b) Qiaoai site

(c) Baihuo site Fig. 4. Layout of the three selected cases.

(a) Shiyang site

(b) Qiaoai site

(c) Baihuo site Fig. 5. Public spaces in the three selected cases.

housing quality resulted in houses that leaked, which in turn reduced the residents’ satisfaction with the quality of the permanent housing. Having already experienced the devastation of two earthquakes, residents in Qiaoai had significant concerns about the house quality. As a result, the residents’ attitude toward the SVAB has gradually changed from trust to reproach. Such dissatisfaction with the housing quality also reduced residents' satisfaction with CRS development (see Table 5). Qiaoai residents therefore had a lower satisfaction level with CRS development than Shiyang residents. This is a common problem at CRS

6.3. Recommendations to improve sustainability of CRS development in post-disaster reconstruction Residents at each site were highly satisfied with the CRS development (as shown in Table 5). This indicates that Lushan County successfully implemented CRS after the Lushan Earthquake. However, Fig. 7 also demonstrates that none of the three approaches were perfectly implemented. First, at the Qiaoai site, the SVAB’s inadequate supervision of the

9

Safety Science 125 (2020) 104626

T. Yang, et al.

(a) Qiaoai site

(b) Baihuo site

Fig. 6. Gardens for growing vegetables at the Qiaoai and Baihuo sites.

reported that many problems occurred during the community management stage in Wenchuan’s CRS. These problems hampered the sustainability of CRS development at each site. The comparative analysis was thus used to generate a map to guide the three CRS development approaches. Fig. 8 shows the key points and critical steps (see gray text boxes) involved in developing CRS in post-disaster reconstruction. Based on the above discussion, the problems at each site could have arisen for the following reasons. First, the specific set of housing recovery guidelines at the village level could have been deficient. Second, the local government might have failed to assess the housing construction capacity of the residents, especially the SVAB members. Third, the technical guidance and monitoring mechanisms for CRS development were insufficient. Finally, short-term reconstruction was considered, but long-term maintenance and development were neglected. If these reasons are not addressed, the larger problems of CRS are likely to continue after other earthquakes in other parts of country; after all, not all rural communities are as experienced as Lushan.

sites in Lushan where the development proceeded from a UPUR approach because the SVAB was made up of community members, only very few of whom had enough technical and management skills to detect errors. This finding is similar to that of Tas et al. (2007), who discussed the significance of effectively supervising housing quality during the reconstruction stage. Although the SVAB form enhances residents' participation, it is important to ensure that SVAB members have sufficient skills to realize high quality housing. This is the most critical issue with the UPJR approach. Second, at the Baihuo site, inadequate infrastructure construction has resulted in exposed wires, creating a fire hazard in wooden houses and reducing resident satisfaction with the infrastructure in CRS (see Fig. 7c). Infrastructure building was implemented by the local government. However, a serious shortage of quality supervisors meant that there was insufficient supervision, resulting in inadequate infrastructure construction in Baihuo. Residents have repeatedly appealed to the government to solve the problem but without success. Living in fear of fire further reduced residents’ satisfaction with CRS development, which is the main reason why Baihuo had an overall lower satisfactory level with CRS development than Shiyang. Therefore, while the UPSR approach has significantly improved resident satisfaction with the housing reconstruction, adequate infrastructure is also important. Third, inadequate housing design plagued both the Shiyang and Qiaoai sites. The houses were unable to resist heavy rain because the local climate was not considered during the planning phases. Furthermore, because of inappropriate housing rooms design, some residents have even pulled down interior walls to rearrange the rooms. This activity led to wasted resources and even caused environmental contamination. Other CRS sites in Lushan had similar problems because the blueprints were provided by the same planning unit. Many other studies have also reported inappropriate housing design, often caused by insufficient attention to local conditions and cultural needs (Manatunge and Abeysinghe, 2017; Samaddar et al., 2017). Finally, there was insufficient community management in the three cases, as shown in Fig. 7. To improve construction quality, the local government selected Sichuan Huashi Group Co., Ltd to build houses and infrastructure. After the reconstruction was completed, the relevant personnel at the Sichuan Huashi Group left Lushan, leading to difficulties in housing and infrastructure maintenance. Peng (2015) also

7. Conclusions CRS is an important manner of promoting post-disaster rural housing recovery in China. However, it has not been well developed. Problems such as determining which approach would be the most effective disaster response and what its prerequisites should be emerged after the Wenchuan Earthquake. These problems were not resolved, and continued after the Lushan Earthquake. They are also likely to appear after future earthquakes in rural communities. This paper compared three approaches to developing CRS, based on three case studies in Lushan County. It evaluated the triggering events, the participants, the processes, and the outcomes. The results revealed a transformation of the housing recovery policy from the Wenchuan Earthquake to the Lushan Earthquake: from government-led initiatives to resident-led reconstruction. The selection of each approach should be based on specific prerequisites to ensure the long-term sustainability of the reconstruction. During CRS development, more effort should also be placed on resident participation to ensure that there is adequate supervision over the housing quality, sufficient infrastructure planning and building, appropriate housing designs, responsible community

Table 5 Level of satisfaction with CRS development in the three cases. Case

Shiyang Qiaoai Baihuo

Not at all satisfied

Dissatisfied

Undecided

Satisfied

N

Percent

N

Percent

N

Percent

N

0 6 0

0.00 0.10 0.00

3 6 6

0.05 0.10 0.10

7 17 10

0.11 0.28 0.16

50 32 33

10

Most satisfied

Total

Percent

N

Percent

N

Percent

0.78 0.52 0.53

4 0 13

0.06 0.00 0.21

64 61 62

1.00 1.00 1.00

F

Sig.

11.802

0.000

Safety Science 125 (2020) 104626

T. Yang, et al.

Fig. 7. Percentage of residents’ satisfaction with different aspects of the three cases. Key: X1 = CRS site selection; X2 = CRS layout; = selected contractor; X3 X4 = reconstruction funds management; X5 = building material quality; X6 = permanent house quality; X7 = number and size of rooms; X8 = CRS infrastructure; X9 = house allocation/location; and X10 = daily community management. The flower petal lengths indicate the level of residents’ satisfaction with different factors relative to the four circles, which represent 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%. Red petals represent issues related to CRS planning; orange petals represent issues related to housing building; green petals represent main outcomes; and the blue petal represents daily community management. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

(a) Shiyang site

(b) Qiaoai site

(c) Baihuo site

Fig. 8. Main steps and key points involved in developing CRS in post-disaster reconstruction.

Housing recovery should be complemented by a long-term system of community management and economic development. Moreover, a database could be created to manage the CRS projects under construction and generate a growing number of CRS cases. These practices provide valuable experiences that are potentially useful to helping villages in other parts of the country when future earthquakes occur. This study’s findings can help improve local governments’ decisionmaking process with respect to CRS development. It highlights suitable measures for promoting sustainable development in post-disaster reconstruction. Future research should focus on establishing a matching model to select the most suitable approach to CRS development based on the specific conditions encountered during post-disaster reconstruction. The goal should be to enable the sustainability and resilience of CRS development.

management, and economic development. Based on the comparative analysis, this study provides a road map for developing CRS during post-disaster reconstruction. The experiences with the Lushan earthquake show that not enough attention was paid to establishing a specific, practical set of housing resettlement and recovery guidelines at the village level. The imperfect performance suggests that there is a need for proper guidelines to pursue sustainable CRS development. In line with this, the governments should consider establishing village-level housing recovery guidelines as part of their disaster preparedness. Special focus should be placed on defining the responsibilities and roles of all of the stakeholders. Formulating how to properly implement the guidelines that determine which approach to select and the key points of each approach should be carried out with technical guidance and monitoring mechanisms in place. Better layout plans and housing designs should be considered in the context of the local conditions and with residents’ participation.

11

Safety Science 125 (2020) 104626

T. Yang, et al.

Acknowledgements

Grant No. CDJKXB12007). The authors of this paper would like to express special thanks to Prof. Louise Comfort and Prof. Liyin Shen for their kind help in providing recommendations.

This research work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Centeral Universities (Grant No.: 2018CDXYJG0047; Appendix A

pdf > [Accessed 13 December 2017]. Islam, M.Z., Kolade, O., Kibreab, G., 2018. Post-disaster housing reconstruction: the impact of resourcing in post-cyclone Sidr and Aila in Bangladesh. J. Int. Dev. 30, 934–960. Liu, H., Zhang, D., Wei, Q., Guo, Z., 2017. Comparison study on two post-earthquake rehabilitation and reconstruction modes in China. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 23, 109–118. Lyons, M., 2009. Building back better: the large-scale impact of small-scale approaches to reconstruction. World Dev. 37, 385–398. Manatunge, J.M.A., Abeysinghe, U., 2017. Factors affecting the satisfaction of post-disaster resettlers in the long term: A case study on the resettlement sites of tsunamiaffected communities in Sri Lanka. J. Asian Dev. 3, 94–124. Oliver-Smith, A., 1991. Successes and failures in post-disaster resettlement. Disasters 15, 12–23. Peng, Y., 2015. A comparison of two approaches to develop concentrated rural settlements after the 5.12 Sichuan Earthquake in China. Habitat Int. 49, 230–242. Peng, Y., Shen, Q., Shen, L., Lu, C., Yuan, Z., 2014. A generic decision model for developing concentrated rural settlement in post-disaster reconstruction: a China study. Nat. Hazards 71, 611–637. Peng, Y., Zhang, F., Jiang, S., Huang, L., Wang, Z., Xu, Y., 2018a. Analysis of farmers’ satisfaction towards concentrated rural settlement development after the Wenchuan earthquake. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 31, 160–169. Peng, Y., Zhu, X., Zhang, F., Huang, L., Xue, J., Xu, Y., 2018b. Farmers' risk perception of concentrated rural settlement development after the 5.12 Sichuan Earthquake. Habitat Int. 71, 169–176. Powell, P.J., 2011. Post-disaster reconstruction: A current analysis of Gujarat's response after the 2001 earthquake. Environ. Hazards 10, 279–292. Sadiqi, Z., Trigunarsyah, B., Coffey, V., 2016. A framework for community participation in post-disaster housing reconstruction projects: A case of Afghanistan. Int. J. Project

References Abhas, K.J., 2010. Safer homes, stronger communities. Handbook for reconstructing after natural disasters. The World Bank-The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington DC. Aini, M.S., Fakhrulrazi, A., 2010. Development of socio-technical disaster model. Saf. Sci. 48, 1286–1295. Andrew, S.A., Long, L.C., Kendra, J.M., 2013. The effect of housing assistance arrangements on household recovery: an empirical test of donor-assisted and owner-driven approaches. J. Hous. Built Environ. 28, 17–34. Araya, M., Chotai, J., Komproe, I.H., Jong, J.T.V.M.D., 2011. Quality of life after postconflict displacement in Ethiopia: comparing placement in a community setting with that in shelters. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 46, 585–593. Badri, S.A., Asgary, A., Eftekhari, A., Levy, J., 2006. Post-disaster resettlement, development and change: a case study of the 1990 Manjil earthquake in Iran. Disasters 30, 451–468. Comerio, M.C., 1998. Disaster Hits Home: New Policy for Urban Housing Recovery. Univ of California Press. Dunford, M., Li, L., 2011. Earthquake reconstruction in Wenchuan: Assessing the state overall plan and addressing the ‘forgotten phase’ ☆. Appl. Geogr. 31, 998–1009. GOV, 2013. The Overall Plan for Post-Lushan Earthquake Recovery and Reconstruction, Available at: < http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2013-07/15/content_2445989. htm > [Accessed 11 December 2017]. Huafeng, Z., 2016. Household vulnerability and economic status during disaster recovery and its determinants: a case study after the Wenchuan earthquake. Nat. Hazards 83, 1505–1526. IFRC, 2006. Owner-driven Housing Reconstruction Guidelines. Available at: < www.ifrc. org/PageFiles/95526/publications/E.02.06.%20ODHR%20Guidelines.

12

Safety Science 125 (2020) 104626

T. Yang, et al.

Univ. Nationalities 5, 8–13 (in Chinese). Xu, X.W., Wen, X.Z., Han, Z.J., Chen, G.H., Li, C.Y., Zheng, W.J., Zhang, S.M., Ren, Z.K., Xu, C., Tan, X.B., 2013. Lushan M S 7.0 earthquake: a blind reserve-fault event. Chin. Sci. Bull. 58, 3437–3443. Yi, H., Yang, J., 2014. Research trends of post disaster reconstruction: The past and the future. Habitat Int. 42, 21–29. Zhang, H., Zhang, X., Comfort, L., Chen, M., 2016. The emergence of an adaptive response network: The April 20, 2013 Lushan, China Earthquake. Saf. Sci. 90, 14–23. Zhang, K.J., Zhang, M.M., 2009. Study on the mechanism and policy of urban and rural housing reconstruction after Wenchuan earthquake. Rural Econ. 11, 44–47 (in Chinese). Zhang, Z., Wen, Y., Wang, R., Han, W., 2018. Factors influencing rural households' willingness of centralized residence: Comparing pure and nonpure farming areas in China. Habitat Int. 73, 25–33. Zhu, X., Sun, B., 2017. Study on earthquake risk reduction from the perspectives of the elderly. Saf. Sci. 91, 326–334.

Manage. 35, 900–912. Samaddar, S., Okada, N., Choi, J., Tatano, H., 2017. What constitutes successful participatory disaster risk management? Insights from post-earthquake reconstruction work in rural Gujarat, India. Nat. Hazards 85, 111–138. SCGOV, 2015. The New Model of Lushan has Reshaped the earthquake area. Available at: < http://www.sc.gov.cn/10462/10464/10797/2015/4/20/10333010. shtml > [Accessed 12 December 2017]. Tas, N., Cosgun, N., Tas, M., 2007. A qualitative evaluation of the after earthquake permanent housings in Turkey in terms of user satisfaction—Kocaeli, Gundogdu Permanent Housing model. Build. Environ. 42, 3418–3431. Vahanvati, M., Mulligan, M., 2017. A new model for effective post-disaster housing reconstruction: Lessons from Gujarat and Bihar in India. Int. J. Project Manage. 35, 802–817. Vallance, S., 2015. Disaster recovery as participation: lessons from the Shaky Isles. Nat. Hazards 75, 1287–1301. Xia, S.Q., 2013. Counterpart support: interaction among political, ethical and market-a case study of post-disaster reconstruction after Wenchuan earthquake. J. Southwest

13