Dr O’Brien, from the Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning at the University of Melbourne says it’s important that the various humanitarian agencies involved in any clean up and support effort take stock of the housing built after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, as no one project has been completely successful. 

“Although reconstruction agencies constructed vast numbers of housing in very trying circumstances, there is clear evidence that residents have found it necessary to remodel, renovate and transform their house to suit their own and broader community needs,” he says.

“This may well suggest that the reconstruction agencies ‘missed their mark’ by providing ill-conceived housing types.  Indeed, around 30% of reconstruction houses are empty!

“Some of the major issues with the new dwellings are that they are too small for families – people liked living in extended family groups in bigger houses – and the bathrooms are external, making it problematic for female residents who must cover up outside under Islamic law…a bit of a hassle if you just want to go to the bathroom!”

Shifting residents away from their old village locations has hindered possible solutions.  “The reconstruction houses are often located close together, as the agencies had to buy land to make new village locations rather than keep people in the older and unsafe locations. “

“So people who would like to extend and improve on their new houses are finding it very hard to do so.”

Dr O’Brien, who is overseeing the research project “Transformation of Post-Disaster Housing: The Case of Aceh, Indonesia”, says while there are many critiques of the post-disaster housing, very few evaluations attempt to understand the nature and quality of the reconstruction houses and draw lessons from them. 

“There are a number of questions agencies need to ask.  Why must the beneficiaries of this housing transform their houses?  What needs are not met through the standardised house?  Can particular house types improve the capacity for residents to transform their house?  Do these houses require residents to create new lifestyles?  Is there scope for incorporating disaster risk reduction into the transformation process?”

“And perhaps most significantly, what lessons does such transformation offer that can inform future policy and practice in the field of post-disaster housing reconstruction?”