Whilst Tool 5 helps explain why and how
people design houses the way they do, Tool 3
has highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of
those designs. We need to take into account both
of these factors in reconstruction. The simplistic
approach of providing cash grants is insufficient
to ensure effective reconstruction. Used alone it
will frequently result in poorly resistant housing,
because people:
• may not understand how and why certain
house-types are more resistant to disasters than
others;
• are unlikely to use a knowledgeable designer;
• may copy what others are doing, without being
able to verify whether that is good or bad;
• may build hybrid houses, a mixture of modern
and traditional shapes and materials, which
tend to be less resistant;
• may try to build on top of partially destroyed
houses, perpetuating the risks.
• can be over-ambitious, starting to build a house
that is too big for their budget, then leave it
unfinished or finish it poorly, increasing their
vulnerability.
These problems can be avoided through
involving of architects and experienced
professionals in the planning and reconstruction
process. However, architects must understand local
building techniques and preferences. A study of
the housing sector can help them to do so. They
also need to know existing local approaches to
withstanding disasters which can be understood
through conducting damage assessments,
observations, published documents and talks with
key informants.
Disaster-resistant design principles
From decades of disaster damage observations
and experience designing reconstruction projects
and programmes, we now have a good knowledge
of disaster-resistant design principles. Those
applicable to small buildings such as houses are
listed in the table on the opposite page for the most
common disasters: storms; earthquakes; floods
and landslides. A lot more detail can be found in
the literature; see, e.g. Coburn et al. (1995) in the
Resources section.
The importance of participation
It was recognised as early as the 1970s by authors
such as John Turner (1976). that residents make
most of the decisions in low-income housing. He
argued that the process of producing housing is
more important than the actual end product, since
it builds people’s capacities and empowers them.
In 1976, the first Habitat Conference in Vancouver
made people’s participation a central element of
future housing policies and strategies. But housing
agencies struggled to implement it, facing the
dilemma of determining : ‘whose participation
in whose decisions and whose actions’? (Turner
1976) In today’s terminology, we would probably
call this the dilemma of good governance. There
is ample evidence now that participation and the
establishment of partnerships between various
stakeholders can be effective in solving deficiencies
in housing and related services, whilst at the same
time building the social and human assets of
those involved (see e.g. Hamdi, 1995).Yet, many
humanitarian agencies involved in reconstruction
are still struggling with this dilemma. They tend
to work in a ‘supply mode’ when providing relief,
which makes it hard to shift to a ‘support mode’,
when they get to reconstruction. As a result,
participation is practised in current reconstruction
projects and programmes, but not in the design
stage. If people are to be less vulnerable to
disasters in the future, they not only need more
resilient houses, but also to become more resilient
themselves. The process of participation helps
to empower them, to build their capabilities and
social networks, and to consider livelihoods issues
in reconstruction, all of which are key components
of vulnerability reduction. Thus, participation needs
to be ensured from an early stage in the entire
reconstruction process, including the design stage.
A changing role for architects
In some countries, the traditionally elitist role
of the architect who mainly works for wealthy
clients, is changing. The Dutch architect Johan
van Lengen, working with the people of Mexico
and later Brasil, described these reoriented
professionals as ‘barefoot architects’ (1982);
others, like Rod Hackney in the UK (1988) call
them ‘community architects’. Pioneers in the USA
include Michael Pyatok and Hanno Webber. In
North America and Europe, community architects
are assisting low-income families and homeless
people to renovate derelict inner city buildings into
living spaces; others work with the inhabitants of
old and poor quality neighbourhoods to upgrade
or renovate housing. Also in North America and
in Japan, a network of community design centres
has been set up, generally in lower-income urban
areas, where local residents can obtain advice and
information, get drawings prepared for buildings
or renovations and get in touch with builders who
have been vetted on the quality of their work.
Rodolfo Livingston is well-known for his work in
Argentina and Cuba. In the latter country, the
Programme of the Architect of the Community is
now well established, in which architects work
with communities to develop housing designs that
they or organised building brigades can use for
construction. It is from such pioneer architects,
2