Vol :37 Issue No.1 2012 - Open House International

Nese Dikmen, Soofia Tahira Elias-Ozkan, Colin Davidson
open house international Vol.37 No.1, March 2012 Comparison Of Post-Disaster Housing...
Worldwide experience of reconstruction after
disasters, whether natural or man-made, has
demonstrated the failure of conventional top-down
approaches (El-Masri and Kellett 2001:536). This
is because top-down approaches tend to emphasize
standardization and technology-oriented solutions
to get the job done quickly and economically.
The outcomes of the top-down approaches have
been found to neglect cultural and local conditions
as well as users’ needs because this approach is
often adopted in response to the urgency to supply
housing rapidly (Johnson 2007). Indeed,
approaches that are not bottom-up can produce
housing units that are expensive and alien; i.e. they
are either not affordable or not suitable for the beneficiaries.
Such post-disaster housing (PDH) units
are often altered to fit the rural lifestyle or, failing
that, abandoned by the users.
In contrast, the essential principles of the bottom-up
approaches in dealing with reconstruction
after disasters call for involving the user, adopting
appropriate technologies, and integrating rebuilding
and development concurrently (El-Masri and
Kellett 2001:536). Although, user involvement may
result in time-consuming discussions and complex
management operations before implementation
can start, the overall advantages of bottom-up
approaches have been extolled by many scholars.
El-Masri and Kellett (2001) claim that if and when
properly planned and implemented such an
approach guarantees a smoother implementation,
a more economical solution that is better tailored to
the needs and means of the users and to their abilities
and aspirations (El-Masri and Kellett
2001:536). Some authors go so far as to suggest
that successful reconstruction cannot be achieved
without the participation of civil society and local
organizations, which usually have a better understanding
of the dynamics of the social structure
within a given community as opposed to larger
governmental units (Miller and Rivera 2011)
According to many authors ( Barakat 2003;
Barenstein 2006; and Lawther 2009; etc.), community
driven reconstruction projects are advantageous
because they can be more cost-effective and
of better quality (if technical and supervision skills
exist); they permit incremental re-construction and
thus earlier occupation; they are more empowering
as they build up confidence, local capacity and
3 0
employment opportunities; and finally, they help
preserve the local cultural heritage.
It has to be pointed out that these two doctrines
(top-down and bottom-up) are based on over simplified
views of the reconstruction processes, and
adopting the position that one has to choose
between them impedes designing properly adapted
responses to the urgent requirements. Indeed, in
addition to the integral top-down and bottom-up
approaches, other approaches have been tried that
are often more suitable to local conditions and cultures.
For example in Gujarat four different
approaches to post disaster housing reconstruction
were employed by the administration. Barenstein
(2006:2) lists them as follows:
• The “contractor driven approach” (either in-situ,
at the original location; or ex-nihilo, at a new location)
where the reconstruction work is handled by a
contractor, with design and technical consultants.
• The “subsidiary housing approach”, where
other agencies complement government grant with
construction material and technical guidance.
• The “participatory housing approach”, where
the various agencies lead the processes with full
participation of the beneficiaries.
• The “owner driven approach”, where the owners
did not participate in the construction work but
retained full control over the processes.
The two Turkish examples described in this
paper correspond to the first and last of these
approaches to post-disaster housing reconstruction,
and represent the classical top-down and bottom-up
approaches.
POST-DISASTER HOU SING
PR OC UR EMENT
According to a report prepared by Rudman et al.
(2003) disaster preparedness planning (before the
disruptive event occurs) involves various governmental
and non-governmental agencies that may
have overlapping jurisdictions and competing
agendas and interest. Hoard et al. (2005) refer to
reports published by the Institute of Medicine (IOM
2002) and the Office of Rural Health Policy (ORHO
2002) when they point out that it is not easy for all
parties to collaborate and communicate effectively,