body

Click here to see the introduction to the models. Click titles 'one' and 'two' to see the models of the two main strategies used for housing reconstruction in the Third World, then click on 'three' to compare the existing strategies with our suggested approach based on a "systems view" of the reconstruction process.

'Enabler' policy, community-based approach

This model illustrates a reconstruction strategy based on local resources within the affected community. This approach exemplifies the typical response under an 'enabler' policy.

Provider policy, technology-based approach

This model illustrates a reconstruction strategy based on reliance on external resources. This approach exemplifies the typical response where authorities take a 'provider' role.

International cooperation policy, mixed strategy

This model illustrates a strategy based on the optimization of both local and external resources. In this strategy flexibility and options of choice are obtained in an evolutionary housing process.

please consult the abstract and the introduction and then roll over the mouse to read here the instructions for navigation

models of reconstruction projects

Online document prepared by Gonzalo Lizarralde and Colin Davidson as part of ongoing research conducted at IF Research Group. Université de Montréal. Faculté de l'aménagement

06.2001

This page has been optimized to be seen in Explorer

Only in 1999, 105.000 people were killed in natural disasters worldwide.

note

This paper presents the preliminary conclusions of our ongoing research about low-cost housing reconstruction strategies used in the Third World. The research presents a "systems view" of the reconstruction process and takes a critical approach of existing strategies. The paper illustrates with graphic models the existing strategies as well as our suggested alternative approach.

abstract

While the number of deaths, injures and economic losses caused by disasters increases every year worldwide, reconstruction programs in the Third World continuously fail to help poor communities recover from destruction. Research demonstrates that despite the fact that enormous resources are devoted to post-disaster reconstruction, very few housing programs targeted to low-income families have lead to sustainable development. Furthermore, increasing uncontrolled urbanization, growing poverty in densely populated developing nations, and insufficient mitigation programs mean that disasters as harmful as those which occurred this year, are far from coming to an end.

Considered as ideologically-supported reactions in time of crisis, housing reconstruction strategies in developing countries can be associated with two extreme paradigms popularized over the last 50 years. During this period, most reconstruction programs implemented by the most important institutions in disaster-relief worldwide (either based on community participation or on imported technology but not on a blend of both) have produced insufficient results to respond to post-disaster housing demands and long term development. This research presents a systemic analysis of the reconstruction process and suggests an alternative strategy. From this perspective, not only the "hard aspects" (directly related to building activities), but also the "soft aspects" of reconstruction (such as information exchange, education and training) are highlighted.

Introduction

Our previous research has focused on a diagnostic study of existing strategies and on the observation of alternatives to overcome the deficiencies found in them. This work has been accompanied by both the study of the Colombian 1999 post-earthquake reconstruction (as a case-study) and the literature review. Other reconstruction projects in Ecuador, Salvador, India, Indonesia, Peru, Bolivia, Nepal, Guatemala and Colombia have also been studied through published reports in academic and other journals.

Before presenting the models that illustrate our research, it is important to review relevant conclusions drawn from our previous work:

- Most frequently used post-disaster reconstruction strategies fall into one of two extreme paradigms: (i) a community-based approach (accompanied by the so-called 'enabler' policy and a central program of self-help); and (ii) a technology-based approached (accompanied by a 'provider' policy).

- Despite of the existence of many technical solutions to post-disaster housing, the reconstruction strategies behind them seem to be based on these two mutually exclusive strategies and failed to adopt innovative or alternative combined solutions. The unfortunate outcomes of this repetitive reliance on static strategies for reconstruction can be blamed for being insufficient results to respond to post-disaster housing demands and long term development.

- Each of the two main strategies applied in the last fifty years, has led to a variety of organizational and technical responses, and has been applied in four main levels: (i) the reconstruction policies, which correspond to the ideology underlying the strategy; (ii) the reconstruction strategy that is seen as a practical application ‘in situ’ of the ideology; (iii) the project for reconstruction; and (iv) the output itself.

- The two existing strategies have revealed severe limitations made worst by bad applications of their theoretical potentials. Despite of the fact that the two approaches have been frequently applied separately, some of the characteristics that have lead to their limited success are common to both. In practice, neither the unpaid labor of self help nor the industrialization of construction has achieved the economic savings that were expected in theory. Some of those characteristics are listed below; note that characteristics marked with (I) apply to industrialized based strategies and those with (s) to self-help based strategies.

(I and s ) considering housing as a problem of 'dwelling units'. In reality, research demonstrates that the low-cost housing crisis in the Third World is also related to other significant factors like land acquisition, infrastructure supply, illegal land tenure, high prices of materials, lack of access to public transportation, lack of access to the financial system, high interest rates, etc.;
(I and s) the design of the dwelling as an enclosed volume to be inhabited by the family, excluding the importance of open or semi-open spaces for community interaction;
(I and s) the lack of concurrent projects of infrastructure and community services;
(I and s) the inappropriate use of standardization that has drawn to repetitive rubber-stamp-like projects and the lack of flexibility in the dwelling units to adapt them to the particular needs or desires of the residents;
(I and s) lack of sensitivity in the urban and landscape design (if it exists at all);
(l and s) a clear orientation towards home-ownership, usually underestimating the needs of tenants and the potential for rental housing;
(I and s) the creation of 'ghettos' by dramatically separating the poor from the rest of society;
(I and s) unsustainable low-density projects based on detached single-family units, usually underestimating the advantages of medium density (2 to four story high) developments;
(I and s) lack of mixed-use projects, due to an underestimation of the advantages obtained from mixing residential use with community commercial and other uses;
(I) the use of designs that are too far from traditional typologies and indigenous distribution of spaces;
(I) the use of materials foreign to the local building practices;
(I) the unsustainability of the industries that produce finished houses only in times of disaster;
(I) extremely high costs of logistics and transportation of materials;
(s) poor quality in the final product as the labor force is inexperienced;
(s) extremely long periods of construction due to the use of this inexperienced labor force, (even in assisted self-help the construction time can be extremely long);
(s) extremely high costs in administration and organization;
(s) extremely high costs on materials due to speculation;
(s) sweat equity takes up time that cannot be used in gainful employment by the people involved in the construction;
(s) underestimation of the costs reduction that can be achieved with rationalized production;
(s) the unsustainability of sites-and-services projects due to their usual location at great distance from working places (where land is less expensive) and lack of proper services;
(s) little real-life participation of the community in self-help activities;
(s) lack of guidelines in the strategy, leading decision makers to 'invent' the strategy each time it is needed;
(s) projects not articulated with general development programs (if they exist at all);
(s) lack of alternatives for families that cannot participate by providing labor force.

Now, please return to the top and in the menu roll over the mouse to read the instructions for navigation.

Click here to see the introduction to the models. Click titles 'one' and 'two' to see the models of the two main strategies used for housing reconstruction in the Third World, then click on 'three' to compare the existing strategies with our suggested approach based on a "systems view" of the reconstruction process. 'Enabler' policy, community-based approach This model illustrates a reconstruction strategy based on local resources within the affected community. This approach exemplifies the typical response under an 'enabler' policy. Provider policy, technology-based approach This model illustrates a reconstruction strategy based on reliance on external resources. This approach exemplifies the typical response where authorities take a 'provider' role. International cooperation policy, mixed strategy This model illustrates a strategy based on the optimization of both local and external resources. In this strategy flexibility and options of choice are obtained in an evolutionary housing process. please consult the abstract and the introduction and then roll over the mouse to read here the instructions for navigation		models of reconstruction projects Online document prepared by Gonzalo Lizarralde and Colin Davidson as part of ongoing research conducted at IF Research Group. Université de Montréal. Faculté de l'aménagement 06.2001 This page has been optimized to be seen in Explorer Only in 1999, 105.000 people were killed in natural disasters worldwide.


note This paper presents the preliminary conclusions of our ongoing research about low-cost housing reconstruction strategies used in the Third World. The research presents a "systems view" of the reconstruction process and takes a critical approach of existing strategies. The paper illustrates with graphic models the existing strategies as well as our suggested alternative approach. abstract While the number of deaths, injures and economic losses caused by disasters increases every year worldwide, reconstruction programs in the Third World continuously fail to help poor communities recover from destruction. Research demonstrates that despite the fact that enormous resources are devoted to post-disaster reconstruction, very few housing programs targeted to low-income families have lead to sustainable development. Furthermore, increasing uncontrolled urbanization, growing poverty in densely populated developing nations, and insufficient mitigation programs mean that disasters as harmful as those which occurred this year, are far from coming to an end. Considered as ideologically-supported reactions in time of crisis, housing reconstruction strategies in developing countries can be associated with two extreme paradigms popularized over the last 50 years. During this period, most reconstruction programs implemented by the most important institutions in disaster-relief worldwide (either based on community participation or on imported technology but not on a blend of both) have produced insufficient results to respond to post-disaster housing demands and long term development. This research presents a systemic analysis of the reconstruction process and suggests an alternative strategy. From this perspective, not only the "hard aspects" (directly related to building activities), but also the "soft aspects" of reconstruction (such as information exchange, education and training) are highlighted. Introduction Our previous research has focused on a diagnostic study of existing strategies and on the observation of alternatives to overcome the deficiencies found in them. This work has been accompanied by both the study of the Colombian 1999 post-earthquake reconstruction (as a case-study) and the literature review. Other reconstruction projects in Ecuador, Salvador, India, Indonesia, Peru, Bolivia, Nepal, Guatemala and Colombia have also been studied through published reports in academic and other journals. Before presenting the models that illustrate our research, it is important to review relevant conclusions drawn from our previous work: - Most frequently used post-disaster reconstruction strategies fall into one of two extreme paradigms: (i) a community-based approach (accompanied by the so-called 'enabler' policy and a central program of self-help); and (ii) a technology-based approached (accompanied by a 'provider' policy). - Despite of the existence of many technical solutions to post-disaster housing, the reconstruction strategies behind them seem to be based on these two mutually exclusive strategies and failed to adopt innovative or alternative combined solutions. The unfortunate outcomes of this repetitive reliance on static strategies for reconstruction can be blamed for being insufficient results to respond to post-disaster housing demands and long term development. - Each of the two main strategies applied in the last fifty years, has led to a variety of organizational and technical responses, and has been applied in four main levels: (i) the reconstruction policies, which correspond to the ideology underlying the strategy; (ii) the reconstruction strategy that is seen as a practical application ‘in situ’ of the ideology; (iii) the project for reconstruction; and (iv) the output itself. - The two existing strategies have revealed severe limitations made worst by bad applications of their theoretical potentials. Despite of the fact that the two approaches have been frequently applied separately, some of the characteristics that have lead to their limited success are common to both. In practice, neither the unpaid labor of self help nor the industrialization of construction has achieved the economic savings that were expected in theory. Some of those characteristics are listed below; note that characteristics marked with (I) apply to industrialized based strategies and those with (s) to self-help based strategies. (I and s ) considering housing as a problem of 'dwelling units'. In reality, research demonstrates that the low-cost housing crisis in the Third World is also related to other significant factors like land acquisition, infrastructure supply, illegal land tenure, high prices of materials, lack of access to public transportation, lack of access to the financial system, high interest rates, etc.; (I and s) the design of the dwelling as an enclosed volume to be inhabited by the family, excluding the importance of open or semi-open spaces for community interaction; (I and s) the lack of concurrent projects of infrastructure and community services; (I and s) the inappropriate use of standardization that has drawn to repetitive rubber-stamp-like projects and the lack of flexibility in the dwelling units to adapt them to the particular needs or desires of the residents; (I and s) lack of sensitivity in the urban and landscape design (if it exists at all); (l and s) a clear orientation towards home-ownership, usually underestimating the needs of tenants and the potential for rental housing; (I and s) the creation of 'ghettos' by dramatically separating the poor from the rest of society; (I and s) unsustainable low-density projects based on detached single-family units, usually underestimating the advantages of medium density (2 to four story high) developments; (I and s) lack of mixed-use projects, due to an underestimation of the advantages obtained from mixing residential use with community commercial and other uses; (I) the use of designs that are too far from traditional typologies and indigenous distribution of spaces; (I) the use of materials foreign to the local building practices; (I) the unsustainability of the industries that produce finished houses only in times of disaster; (I) extremely high costs of logistics and transportation of materials; (s) poor quality in the final product as the labor force is inexperienced; (s) extremely long periods of construction due to the use of this inexperienced labor force, (even in assisted self-help the construction time can be extremely long); (s) extremely high costs in administration and organization; (s) extremely high costs on materials due to speculation; (s) sweat equity takes up time that cannot be used in gainful employment by the people involved in the construction; (s) underestimation of the costs reduction that can be achieved with rationalized production; (s) the unsustainability of sites-and-services projects due to their usual location at great distance from working places (where land is less expensive) and lack of proper services; (s) little real-life participation of the community in self-help activities; (s) lack of guidelines in the strategy, leading decision makers to 'invent' the strategy each time it is needed; (s) projects not articulated with general development programs (if they exist at all); (s) lack of alternatives for families that cannot participate by providing labor force. Now, please return to the top and in the menu roll over the mouse to read the instructions for navigation.