Sheltering and development

Conveners: Johnny Åstrand and Ivette Arroyo, Housing Development & Management, Lund University

Contact: ivette.arroyo@hdm.lth.se

Poverty and underdevelopment leads to makeshift shelter and poor living conditions in developing countries. This increases the vulnerability of people and their built environment when facing natural hazards. The 7,0 earthquake in Haiti in 2010 caused over 200,000 deaths, destroyed 105,000 houses and more than 208,000 units were damaged. In 2013, Typhoon Haiyan caused the death of more than 6,000 people, the destruction of 580,000 houses and damaged 550,000 units in the Philippines.

At global level, the Humanitarian reform of 2005 lead to the cluster approach to emergency response and the ‘shelter cluster’ was activated both for Haiti and the Philippines. At policy level, the definition of ‘emergency shelter’ that excludes transitional and permanent shelter is shifting from a product-based concept towards a process view of ‘sheltering’. This shift seems to diminish the gap between short- term humanitarian assistance and long-term urban development. Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 11 and 13 –Sustainable cities and communities, and Climate action respectively –can be addressed through a process view of sheltering. This could be done when linking emergency shelter and permanent housing reconstruction and through involving disaster survivors in such processes. Users involvement in post-disaster housing reconstruction processes can lead to both sustainable built environment and communities.

The panel ‘Sheltering and Development’ aims to generate discussion on the following aspects:

• current post-disaster housing reconstruction in developing countries
• address the challenges of linking post-disaster housing reconstruction and urban development
• need for capacity building within the global humanitarian sector and in developing countries

23 Aug., 16:00–17:30, Seminar Room U26

• Becoming a refugee: A personal account of the 2010 Mount Merapi disaster in Yogyuakarta, Indonesia. Wiryono Raharjo, Universitas Islam Indonesia.
• Social Interfaces in Disaster Recovery: The Case of Relocation and Housing Reconstruction. Emmanuel Raju, University of Copenhagen
• Users involvement in post-disaster housing reconstruction. Ivette Arroyo, Lund University.

Abstracts

Becoming a refugee: A personal account of the 2010 Mount Merapi disaster in Yogyuakarta, Indonesia. Wiryono Raharjo, Universitas Islam Indonesia.

Mount Merapi has been regarded as the most active volcano among the 147 volcanoes in Indonesia. Rises 2930 meters above sea level, this stratovolcano is located 28 kilometers north of Yogyakarta City. It has been regularly erupted since 16th century, but the 2010 eruption was seen as the biggest in the past 200 years. Both author’s work place (Universitas Islam Indonesia) and residence are located within 20 kilometers radius from the crater, in which case are considered safe because the danger zone during regular eruption is 7 kilometers radius. However, when the intensity of eruption reached its peak in late October 2010, the government issued a warning which told that areas within 20 kilometers radius from the crater must be vacated. As a result, author and the whole residents of villages within such radius must find temporary shelters, ranging from government-assisted facilities, such as sports and community halls, to residences of extended families and hotels. Universitas Islam Indonesia’s main campus must also be vacated as well. This paper will describe a personal account of author experience from being a member of university’s rescue team to being a refugee who had to find temporary shelter for the family, while maintaining the academic activities during the three weeks warning period. The paper also looks at the current situation, over 5 years after the deadly 2010 eruption, to see the continuity and change of the built environment, which may reflect people’s attitude towards the danger of Mount Merapi eruption.

Social Interfaces in Disaster Recovery: The Case of Relocation and Housing Reconstruction. Emmanuel Raju, University of Copenhagen

Disaster recovery is considered one of the least studies aspects of disaster research. One area that receives immense attention is the housing sector. However, there are many lessons that continue to arise from mega disasters in housing reconstruction. One issue that constantly keeps appearing is that of relocation pots-disasters. This paper is an attempt to analyze different social interfaces arising in housing reconstruction and relocation in disaster recovery. It brings cases from South Asia in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004.

Users involvement in post-disaster housing reconstruction. Ivette Arroyo, Lund University.

In post-disaster situations the approaches and timing of planners and architects regarding housing reconstruction may not be in synchronisation with that of national authorities and the international humanitarian community. This mismatch is due to the conflict of two different logics; the first, a long-term development perspective; and the second, short-term emergency relief. One of the consequences of this mismatch is that people affected by the disaster are excluded from being involved in the post-disaster reconstruction process. The Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 affected several countries in Asia. India was among the worst affected. Another major disaster that devastated Asia is Typhoon Haiyan which hit the Philippines in 2013. This paper analyses how users were involved in different housing reconstruction processes. For the case of the tsunami the paper uses reports and reconstruction evaluations as a point of departure to highlight key lessons in this process. For the Philippines case- the paper draws from a descriptive case study based on semi-structured interviews and focus groups. The findings discuss different types of users involvement at different stages of the housing reconstruction process. The tsunami case highlights different forms of interfaces arising between different stakeholders in the process. Involving the users in early stage evaluation post-occupancy might lead to houses that could address better the changing needs of families in the long term.