Post Occupancy Evaluation of Housing Reconstruction After Cyclone Sidr

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1499582/v1

Post occupancy evaluation of housing reconstruction after a disaster is imperative for every nation that pushes ahead the idea of resilient housing, which is obligatory for the social, cultural, and economic growth of a society or a country. Cyclone SIDR is the most dreadful of all catastrophes that have struck Bangladesh and aftermath of this catastrophe, a number of donor organizations stepped up to help victims by providing housing solutions. The aim of this study is to effectiveness analysis of the housing reconstruction programs from planning and construction standpoints with a post occupancy framework. Based on three months of detailed field survey at the mostly devastated location of cyclone SIDR, Southkhali Union (small rural area) of Sarankhola Upazila (sub-district) of Bagerhat District, this research infers that the donor organizations didn’t pay much attention in terms of choice, need and decision-making role to provide reconstructed houses for the target beneficiaries. The study found that about 78% of the reconstructed houses hold dissatisfaction of the beneficiaries. As a result, people prompt to transform or modify 54% of the ‘Donor Driven’ houses according to their choice and need soon after completion of the project. Another 16% donor driven house remained abandoned and rest 8% demolished. On the other hand, owner driven houses are functionally perfect, affordable, use locally available natural materials with resilient planning and construction features which reduces disaster vulnerability and sustains for long time in comparison with donor driven houses.

Post occupancy

Cyclone SIDR

Bangladesh

Donor Driven

Housing Reconstruction

Owner Driven

Natural disasters inflict substantial harm in the social, economic, political, and environmental sectors throughout the world every year (Seidler et al. 2018). The number of catastrophes has increased dramatically in the last twenty years owing to recurrent hits of natural disasters (Djalante 2018). Large-scale environmental change is critically evident in diverse sectors because of these disasters (Ahmed et al. 2019; Kovats and Akhtar 2008). One of the alarming changes visible due to the large-scale environmental change is the strength of cyclones (Edenhofer 2015). Additionally, cyclones are one of the worst natural disasters, with people living along the coastline in developing countries being especially vulnerable (Baldwin et al. 2019; Vishnu et al 2019). Cyclones often strike countries like Bangladesh, India, China and Vietnam; causing massive destruction on lives and assets as huge low-income people live along the coastlines (Aryal et al. 2020, Skoufias et al. 2019; Vishnu et al 2019). As a result of the destruction, livelihoods are usually disrupted to a great extent. Following a disaster, the first and foremost task is to re-build houses in order to recover the normal livelihood among the disaster victims (Barakat 2003).

Bangladesh is located in a funnel-shaped deltaic coastal topography of the Bay of Bengal, flanked on three sides by India. In comparison to other neighboring countries, the amplitude of devastation by cyclone coupled with high tide is greater due to this geographical characteristic. In the recent past, Bangladesh has experienced several natural disasters, including SIDR in 2007, Aila in 2009, Bulbul in 2019 and Amphan in 2020 (Islam et al. 2021). The super cyclone, SIDR, was one of the ten worst storms to impact the territory of Bangladesh during the last 131 years between 1876 and 2007 (The Daily Star 2021). It swept across the country’s heartland and brushed up to the western coast, with wind speeds of 248 kph and high tides up to 6m (GoB 2007; Paul 2009).

Due to the cyclone SIDR 3,406 people were died with 871 missing and about 55,000 people were physically injured (GoB 2008a). The impact of SIDR on the housing sector was severe, with damages totaling US$839 million, accounting for more than half of the overall loss across all sectors (GoB 2008a). According to a World Bank report, the SIDR inflicted losses of US$1.7 billion, or nearly 3% of the country’s total domestic output (GoB 2008). About 500,000 houses were completely damaged with another 900,000 houses were severely damaged (Islam et al. 2021; Paul 2008). It is mentionable that while the Government of Bangladesh is emphasizing on improving the early warning systems to alert prospective disaster victims and to place them in cyclone shelters to save lives. Be-sides human casualties one of the most visible and striking effects of any major disaster is the destruction of houses. As a result, the death rate is lower (Choudhury 2004; Islam et al. 2021; Paul 2012), yet property damage is much higher (GoB 2008a).

Construction of houses usually remains a major activity in the reconstruction phase of a disaster. There are two distinct concepts used for post disaster housing reconstruction (PDHR), namely, the donor-driven and owner-driven approaches. Cyclone SIDR in Bangladesh provides an opportunity to study the strength, limitation and related issues of these two approaches. The quickest way to re-build houses after a disaster is to employ what is known as the “Donor Driven” approach. In this approach the government or external organizations who provides funds to lead the reconstruction process with the help of consultants and contractors. For example: following the cyclone SIDR, the Government of Bangladesh provided 100 USD per family as one-time housing assistance; 13,000 bundles of corrugated iron (CI) sheets; 13,406 tents and 15,000 plastic sheets to approximately 100,000 families whose houses were completely destroyed (Paul and Nadiruzzaman 2013). In the Bagerhat, Patuakhali, and Pirojpur districts of Bangladesh; Muslim Aid and the European Commission for Humanitarian Aid build 800 transitional houses and donated building supplies to reconstruct the houses of 2000 families. Habitat for Humanity in Bangladesh has also constructed 480 transitional houses with sanitation facilities. Despite these humanitarian efforts, they were lagging behind in terms of UN HABITAT’s key objectives of providing permanent, durable, and cyclone-resistant housing to the afflicted communities (Da Silva and Batchelor 2010; Freeman 2004; Lloyd-Jones 2006; Moe et al. 2007). The major limitation of this approach is that it may lead to housing that does not respond to the need of the indigenous residents or the disaster victims. In “Donor Driven” approach several key questions need to be answered: which kind of housing, what kind of assistance, what technique should they employ, which housing technology should be implemented, what kind of building materials will be used (Barenstein 2006)?

In “Owner Driven” housing reconstruction approach, any institution and individual provide assistance directly to households for the rebuilding of their damaged homes. Owner-driven approach has several advantages over do-nor driven, including cost-effectiveness, speed of construction, empowerment of local communities through a wide range of options like consideration of affordability, allowing occupancy well before house is fully finished, higher occupancy rates, and enhancement of local markets and trade (Karunasena and Rameezdeen 2010; Peppiatt et al. 2001; Sesnan 2004).

Against this backdrop, it is important to investigate the best fitted approach as a means of sustainable and acceptable PDHR practice. The answer to this investigation may help to formulate the policy and to guide PDHR programs for better effectiveness.

Researchers in this relevant field have made a variety of arguments concerning the failure grounds in PDHR programs. They mentioned that the major factors which contribute to the failure of donor driven PDHR projects are: lack of available resources (Chang et al. 2012), lack of coordination among participant organizations (Hidayet et al. 2014), delays in project executions (Nazara and Resosudarmo 2007), low-quality reconstructed houses (Ahmed and Charlesworth 2015), corruption (The World Bank 2013a), lack of community participation (Davidson et al. 2007), and ineffective design (Alexandrova and Ivanova 2012). But majority of researchers didn’t check why, how and what causes the PDHR programs fail to meet the choice, need and demands of the disaster victims. Previous researchers overlook the root of the problem i.e., why the provided housing solution can’t sustain during the operational phase. Many beneficiaries i.e., disaster victims didn’t use the gifted donor driven houses for the intended purpose. Instead, they sold the donated house and purchase other necessities (Paul and Nadiruzzaman 2013).

Post occupancy evaluation of PDHR programs often offer critical insights. A significant need exists for post occupancy evaluation, such as on resident satisfaction (Rand et al., 2011), resident adaptations to houses (Ash-more et al., 2003), maintenance and patterns of disaster recurrence. Very few studies are post occupancy evaluation or have any long-term follow-up with the disaster-affected people regarding the evaluation of the housing projects. Post occupancy evaluation takes time, but the few studies that exist (Snarr and Brown, 1980, 1982, 1994) provide a solid method to assess the PDHR pro-grams. This paper contributes to the operational lesson through an exploration of local perceptions in the aftermath of the cyclone SIDR is that PDHR programs need to be geared up towards supporting people in making their own housing choice and decisions.

The aim of this research is to uncover the facts: why the vast majority of disaster victims attempt to modify the donor driven houses shortly after completion of the reconstruction project. Taking Southkhali Union of Bagerhat district in Bangladesh as a case study, this paper highlights the aftermath of design deficiencies in donor driven PDHR programs. The absence of indigenous approach causes to fail the housing programs and contribute as an unseen reason in donor driven PDHR program.

This paper attempts to contribute to this debate by assessing the post occupancy evaluation of both donor driven and owner driven housing solution especially considering planning issues; including house size, floor planning, openings, ventilation, thermal comfort and choice of materials. In addition, the study also reviews the construction ideologies of both approaches in PDHR programs like foundation types, considerations on plinth level, wall elements, provision of ceiling and roofs considering foresee-able disaster threats.

This study intends to have a post occupancy evaluation of the donor driven PDHR programs to SIDR affected households. Southkhali union has been chosen as the study area located in the Soronkhola upazila of Bagerhat district in Bangladesh and considered as the most severely devastated area after the cyclone SIDR. Bagerhat district (89°40’E and 90°00’E longitudes, 22°00’N and 24°60’N latitudes) is located in the Bangladesh’s southern-western area (Fig. 1), and approximately 240 kilometers south of Dhaka, the country’s capital. Sarankhola upazila lies at the southernmost part of Bagerhat district, bordering India. The study area is approximately 137.85 acres in size, and it is bordered on the south by the great river Boleshwar, on the north by the river Bhola and on the northwest and southeast by the Sundarbans. In the study area, over 24,980 individuals are still living in horrific conditions (Paul and Nadiruzzaman 2013). The group of residents, infact, keep its distinct culture, and it is an indigenous community that has preserved and maintained a traditional lifestyle and livelihood based mostly on farming and fishing (Southkhali Union Profile).Due to its geo-graphical seclusion, it only has a limited involvement in the surrounding area’s integrated social and eco-nomic life. People in this area rely heavily on natural resources for survival activities.

Three guiding principles influenced the decision to choose the study area. First, the country’s coastline is the most disaster-prone locations in Bangladesh. The coastal region has the close proximity to the Bay of Bengal and any disaster strikes the coastal region with full force. In terms of susceptibility and adaptation measures, this area is regarded to be representative of other disaster-prone locations in Bangladesh and the lessons learned from this study may be ap-plied to other comparable studies. Secondly, typical housing reconstruction processes were visible in this area following the cyclone SIDR. Various government, non-government organizations and donor organizations donates complete housing materials to the disaster affected people. However, the Government and Non-Governmental Organizations’ reconstruction strategies were quite simple in floor layout, basement, and superstructure (Paul and Nadiruzzaman, 2013). Third, most of the reconstructed or newly built houses were modified, extended or abandoned within a few months after completion. Also, according to the prevailing records, 4,484 houses in the Southkhali union were completely damaged, with 93% of those houses being were rebuilt following the cyclone SIDR and that houses are studied here. Therefore, the housing attributes of the Southkhali union probably portraits the general scenario PDHR of Bangladesh.

The field survey involves questionaries survey, physical observation and photographic survey using ODK application (mobile app-based surveying) assisted with Key Informant Survey (KIS). In order to complete the survey, the authors spend approximately three months in 2020, mostly through onsite observation of the recon-structed houses, interacting with villagers, contacting and collecting information from the local representatives.

Around 600 (six hundred) reconstructed houses were surveyed in the study area. Seven donor organizations, including Muslim Aid, the Saudi Government, the Indian Government, JJR, RICK, CARE, and the Bangladesh Government, have come up to conduct the reconstruction activities. Following a reconnaissance survey of the entire study area, it was planned to conduct a detailed physical observation of forty modified houses that belong to each donor organization, with 12 additional houses; totaling two hundred ninety-two modified houses, which were modified after completion. The questionnaire survey using ODK includes questions on construction cost, foundation type, foundation material, wall material, ceiling material, materials of roof truss, height of the ceiling, age of the houses, present purpose of use, preparedness to future disasters such as floods and cyclones, strength and limitation of donor and owner-driven houses, affordability as well as modification thoughts. Several photographs of modified houses were also captured throughout the study.

As part of KIS, opinions were collected from the government officials, officers of the NGOs, Engineers and contractors who worked during the reconstruction and the local leaders were interviewed. They were also inquired about their thoughts regarding the donor and owner-driven housing supply strategy and respective effectiveness. The survey was also conducted interaction with concern architects and engineers of PDHR projects to have their conceptual views on planning the post disaster housing models. They provided related sketches, drawings, estimates and photographs of different housing models and explained the planning concepts. All these information along with physical observation during the field survey were helpful to reach the study objectives. Following the completion of the extensive survey work, an engineering analysis was conducted, which was separated into two categories: planning aspect and construction aspect.

Analysis

PDHR activities should be addressed for those who may have lost their houses. Reconstructed houses should be safe and comfortable with basic sanitation facilities. The house should provide adequate protection to its residents. However, after completion of the field survey, it became clear that there are some typical post disaster housing models in terms of cost, material, and design in donor-driven houses. On the other hand, the owner driven houses provide diverse design and models and offer a total solution to the housing needs. Another finding is that most of the donor’s concept in providing house is nearly identical. Usually, donors put pressure on the contractors to be completed the houses within shortest possible time, but none of them consider building a resilient structure. It revealed from the field survey that the donor-driven houses failed to satisfy the huge disaster victims. In line with this field observation, the study attempt to explore the two core aspects from an engineering standpoint to elucidate the insights connected to the victims’ discontent with PDHR.

Planning aspect

Participatory approach in planning house services and policy making has long been emphasized by researchers in this field. Not only does it allow planners to obtain a better understanding of the majority’s preferences and local knowledge, but it also continues to enhance support for policies and may help to avoid costly and time-consuming challenges against plans, actions and policies (Ganapati and Ganapati 2008; Innes and Booher 2004). However, the gap is visible is Southkhali area and the absence of local participation in PDHR leads to victims’ decision to modify or abandon donor-driven houses. Following section will discuss more about the ill-suited planning features of the donor driven houses.

House size

Core houses are appropriate with adequate living space. Achieving this will be a significant step in setting a good standard for post-disaster reconstruction. During the field survey, it was observed that the core houses built by donors in the aftermath of cyclone SIDR were too small to address the requirements of the victims. About 90% of the houses were built by various donors, NGOs, and GoB having floor area ranging from 10.4 sqm to 20.9 sqm without verandah for a family of 5. A floor plan is shown in Fig. 2a to visualize the space standard of a typical do-nor driven house. Majority of the households in the study area have joint or extended families, with each family have more than five to six members. The interviewee households claimed that living in such a small house was extremely challenging for them. Due to this constraint, victims in the SIDR-affected area were forced to expand and transform the donor-driven houses to meet their demands. According to the results of field survey, 54% of donor driven houses have been expanded and modified on one, two or three sides (Fig. 2b).

Floor plan

Floor plans allow ones to imagine how people will use space in an area, making it easier to determine whether the space is adequate for its intended function. People usually make more detail planning before opt to remodeling action. In context with this reality, the 78% interviewee households responds that they are not satisfied with the space planning as it can’t address their functional use of space. The space plan of the donor-driven houses is a single core unit without any verandah or toilet, which is not suitable to fulfill the needs of locals (Fig. 3a). Thus, people forced to modify the space plan (Fig. 3b). It was noticed that 54% of donor-driven houses were remodeled with an appropriate space plan by using the maximum materials of donor-driven houses. The respondents also stated that numerous donors, NGOs, and the officials didn’t pay much attention in providing other facilities like verandah and toilets in this housing reconstruction project. Soon after the SIDR, the respondents of the Southkhali union confronted with such serious lack of sanitary facilities and it prompted people to modify and transform the donor-driven house within a year.

Doors and windows

Doors and windows are crucial for better air circulation and indoor thermal comfort. Without sufficient doors and windows, a house often become warm and creates dis-comfort. It is possible to drive out the warm air and re-duce the amount of condensation in the house by opening all the windows and doors. Most of the houses in the study area built by various donors were abandoned for a variety of reasons, the most common of which were the lack of openings: doors, and windows (Fig. 4a). Around 83% of the houses having 1 or 2 windows and the size of the windows were too small. About 17% of the houses had no windows at all, which was completely modified in response to the victims’ desire. Because of these poor arrangements, living in these types of houses created un-endurable thermal discomfort to the households. There-fore, the indigenous residents were forced to modify their houses with several numbers (at least 3) of windows to make indoor more comfortable (Fig. 4b).

Materials

Housing needs good materials, even in the case of low-cost housing. High-quality materials, for example, are long-lasting, offer attractive characteristics and require less maintenance. This is referred to as ‘basic durability’ (Brednoord 2017). But the quality of materials used in the donor driven houses were unsatisfactory in terms of durability and thermal comfort, according to the victims in the affected area. The majority of the donors used Corrugated Iron (CI) sheet for wall and roofing material (Fig. 5a). Unfortunately, field survey affirms that most of the CI sheets corroded after a few years due to salinity effects. It was assessed that the use of CI sheets with thin bamboo layer frames created 4ºC warmer than any other roof in Bangladesh (Tariq and Ahmed 2013). The interviewee households expressed that the use of CI sheets with metal roof frames caused intolerable indoor environment during the pick summer and forced them to walk outside. So, the households attempted to maintain their houses in a variety of ways. To prevent corrosion, the CI sheets were sometimes coated with tar. Additionally, some owners have modified the donor driven houses with diverse materials like as timber, wood, bamboo mat and palm tree which is corrosion-free, thermally comfortable, and long-lasting (Fig. 5b).

Construction aspect

When occupants have a say in significant choices and are free to contribute to the construction and management of their houses, both the procedures and the environment that results promote individual and social well-being (Turner 1976). Moreover, in the context of the study area, local engagement in PDHR sector is extremely low, resulting in victim’s dissatisfaction. The construction features of the studied houses will be discussed in more detail in the following sections.

Foundation

A substructure is the part of a house that is to be constructed below the existing ground level. The footing of a house belongs to sub-structure that transfers the load of a house to the underlying soil. Therefore, footings should be of stiff enough to effectively bear the super-structure’s load while remaining static within the surrounding soils. Failure of footing leads to total failure. In most disaster-prone areas, houses fail due to faulty foundations or footings. The survey found that about 87% of the donor-driven reconstructed houses in the study area have no foundations. It stands on four (100mm x 100mm) poor quality precast concrete columns (Fig. 6a) and are anchored directly into the ground up to 300mm without any base. Some of the houses are built with bamboo or timber posts only. These practices are extremely vulnerable. This type of houses is damaged even in a low-level flood, where is the depth of water is below 0.5m (Hamdan et al. 2019) (Fig. 6b). About 13% of donor-driven houses are found to have earthen plinth (Fig. 6c). Often the earthen plinths washed away in moderate level floods with inundation level from 1m-1.5m (Hamdan et al. 2019). Bamboo or timber posts decay at the base in moist soil, especially during long-term, weakening the overall structure of the houses. Therefore, replacement of bamboos and timber posts of the houses are required on a regular basis that prompts the owner to reconstruct the houses by using heavy foundation with brick footing (55%) and RCC footing (25%).

Plinth level

The plinth belongs to the sub-structure of a house and erosion of the plinth leads to the failure of the house. It is marked in the study area that most of the donor driven reconstructed houses had a plinth level of 305mm or less than 305mm (65%). About 15% houses had a plinth of 305-610mm and 11% houses have more than 610mm plinth and other 9% have plinth that are hardly be seen. As a result, 16% of all houses are now abandoned (Fig. 7a) and some of the houses are now used as cowsheds and for other farming purposes. Due to the absence of separation between the wall material and the topsoil, the wall materials come into contact with the soil, intrusion of salinity takes place, and eventually it causes the corrosion of CI wall materials. Households in this area claim that due to absence of plinth, rainfall readily enters into the houses, making it impossible to live inside during the rainy season as the floors are becomes muddy. On the other hand, the owner-driven post-disaster houses were built with a higher plinth level (more than 610 mm) and some-times made with brick wall (Fig. 7b). This difference made the sense that the donor driven post-disaster houses are mostly susceptible to erosion. About 4% of donors helped the victims to make raised plinths with permanent materials. Actually, the raised and stabilized and stabilized plinth protects the house during rainy season, against floods and gradual deterioration.

Wall

Houses constructed with locally derived materials are suggested by housing experts. In the study area; clay, straw, bamboo and sand are readily available and need no special treatment (Drozd et al. 2018) to use in construction. Bamboo mat is commonly used as wall material-al in the houses and organic materials (such as jute sticks and catkin grass) are conventionally popular to use as wall material. It was revealed from the questionnaire sur-vey that bamboo mats have a 4–5 year lifespan and organic materials have 2–3 year lifespan. Most of the donor driven houses in the study area are made using CI sheet instead of using bamboo mats, jute sticks or catkin grass. Often the donors press the contractors to construct the houses in a short span of time without considering afford-ability of the users. As a result, donors selected CI sheet as a wall material (Fig. 8a) as it is readily accessible and reasonably priced in the local market. So, donors were initiated to use CI sheets as wall material which has many disadvantages. It creates indoor thermal discomfort, most susceptible to corrosion with minimum durability. Its sharp edge is a dangerous element during a storm. The walls of owner-driven post-disaster house are often made with wood as well as other natural material, with a number of large windows (Fig. 8b). As a result, these houses are quite pleasant to live in and appear to be safe and sound.

Ceiling

Ceilings enable the containment and division of spaces, as well as the regulation of light and sound. Not only that, but it also has a significant impact on the indoor thermal comfort and storage facilities. Therefore, the ceiling is a significant part of the housing reconstruction. In the study area it is found that CI sheet is generally used as roofing materials with timber or steel framing. About 85% of the donor-driven houses has no provision of ceiling (Fig. 9a). As a result of these factors, residents in this area face a variety of challenges. If a ceiling is given, people can utilize it for storage and to create a more pleasant living environment. It’s also worth mentioning that the majority of residents in the study area spend the most of their time outdoor space during the full summer as the indoor be-comes hot and humid. If a ceiling is not provided, it may overturn during strong winds since it is not securely fastened to the columns. On the other hand, the owner driven houses in the study area usually have excellent quality ceiling (Fig. 9b). As a result, the donor driven houses could not address the demand of the locals considering the provision of ceiling and eventually transformed or modified.

Roof

The roofs of owner driven houses are often built with catkin grass; rice/wheat or maize straw with bamboo or palm tree frame. Within the study area, most of the donor driven houses are found to build with gable (dochala) and hip (chauchala) type roof truss without the provision of adequate ventilation. CI sheets are used in donor driven houses with timber or steel frames (Fig. 10a). According to the field observation, 86% of surveyed houses area built with timber and another 14% houses used mild steel angle section as roof truss. Steel or timber truss is costly and not affordable to the majority of low-income residents. Again, CI sheet roofs transmit unendurable heat inside the room without intrusion of external air. The trapped warm air without any natural cooling provision makes the house difficult to reside either day or night. Owner driven houses, on the other hand, are built with natural materials with big windows and with a simple roof which offer natural air ventilation (Fig. 10b). Eventually, owner driven houses offer better indoor thermal comfort, low cost, affordable and better acceptable in comparison with donor driven houses.

Previous research on the suitability of the donor driven or owner driven PDHR approaches to various disaster situations is limited to very few cases. The housing reconstruction program implemented in Bangladesh after the cyclone SIDR used both the methods with varying degrees of success.

Donor organizations rarely analyze and evaluate the impact and fruitfulness of their post-disaster housing projects. Table 1 summarizes the findings of the present research to the contribution of two different housing approaches. It paints a clear and coherent picture. The highest level of satisfaction was achieved in ‘Owner Driven’ approach.

Table 1

Findings of Donor Driven and Owner Driven Reconstruction Approaches
Assessment Parameters			Donor Driven (N = 540)		Owner Driven (N = 60)
Assessment Parameters			Findings	(%)	Findings	(%)
Planning Aspects	1.	House Size	10.4 to 20.9 sqm	83%	30 to 40 sqm	100%
	1.	House Size	30 to 40 sqm	17%	30 to 40 sqm	100%
	2.	Floor Plan	Fulfill the Choice/Demand	22%	Fulfill the Choice/Demand	100%
	2.	Floor Plan	Dissatisfied	78%	Satisfied	100%
	3.	No. of Windows	1 or 2 Windows	83%	More than 3 Windows	100%
	3.	No. of Windows	No Window	17%	More than 3 Windows	100%
	4.	Materials	Manufactured Materials	86%	Manufactured Materials	10%
	4.	Materials	Natural Materials	14%	Natural Materials	90%
	5.	Thermal Comfort	Ensure Thermal Comfort	10%	Ensure Thermal Comfort	90%
	5.	Thermal Comfort	Light and Air Circulation	10%	Light and Air Circulation	90%
	6.	Affordability	Affordable	10%	Affordable	100%
Design Aspect	7.	Foundation	Without Footing	87%	Brick Footing	55%
			Earthen Plinth	13%	RCC Footing	25%
			---	---	Without Footing	20%
	8.	Plinth Level	305mm or less	65%	More than 610mm	100%
			305–610mm	15%
			More than 610mm	11%
			Negligible Plinth	9%
	9.	Ceiling	With Ceiling	15%	With Ceiling	100%
	9.	Ceiling	Without Ceiling	85%	With Ceiling	100%
	10.	Roof	Steel Truss	14%	Steel Truss	---
			Timber Truss	86%	Timber Truss	85%
			Bamboo Truss	---	Bamboo Truss	15%
Overall Rate of Satisfaction			Satisfied	13%	Satisfied	100%

The filed survey reflects that the donor driven solution failed to grasp the choice, need and ideas of the residents. The size of the donor-driven houses was inadequate to meet the needs of the locals. The floor plans were identical to a core housing unit without any sanitation facilities. It prompts 78% of the beneficiaries to search alternate solutions. Natural air ventilation is another issue which is absent in donor driven houses, leading to trap the indoor warm air, exacerbated by the use of conventional CI sheets used in roof. Moreover, most of the donor driven houses use CI sheets as wall material and other manufactured materials. All these elements contribute to indoor thermal discomfort in donor driven houses. Eventually, the unit cost becomes unaffordable by the rural populace. On the other hand, alternate materials, planning and construction techniques (Table 1) are practiced in owner driven houses, and it became prevalent in the study area.

More than 87% of the donor-driven houses did not have any footing on which the columns or pillars are anchored. The donor driven houses have erroneous or even no plinths which makes difficult to dwell even in rainy season. About 65% of donor houses have plinths of less than 300mm. At the same time, 85% of the donor driven houses did not have any ceiling, roof frames are fastened directly with the columns and become a weak structure.

With regard to planning, design and construction of donor driven houses, 87% of the beneficiaries were not satisfied. As a result, most of the houses were modified by the owners themselves, based on their preferences and needs. According to Table 2, it is evident that only 22% of all donor driven houses are functional whereas all the owner driven houses are still functional with full satisfaction. Rest 78% donor driven houses have been modified in one way or other. According to Table 3, as many as 54% of donor driven houses are expanded, modified or transformed, another 16% be-come abandoned i.e. used as cowshed or firm house and rest 8% houses are totally demolished from the site.

Table 2

Functional Status of Reconstructed Houses
Operators	Status	No.	Percentage
Owner Driven (N = 60)	Functional	60	100%
Donor Driven (N = 540)	Functional	117	22%

Table 3

Status of Donor Driven Reconstructed Houses
Status	No.	Percentage
Modified (N = 540)	292	54%
Abandoned (N = 540)	87	16%
Abolished (N = 540)	44	8%

In dealing with post-disaster housing, the social, environmental, traditional and cultural context must be taken into account (e.g. Cuny, 1983; Quarantelli, 1995; Babister and Kelman, 2002; Ashmore et al., 2003; Barakat, 2003). Different cultures have different livelihoods, privacy standards, health needs and psychological responses to housing processes. Along with various factors, the choice and need of the target beneficiaries such as space plan, unit size, materials, ventilation, indoor comfort, and disaster resiliency are reflected appropriately in owner driven houses and sustains for longer time in the study area.

The preceding discussion ignores the fact that housing is more than the used construction materials, labor, time, and money that may have been spent on it. Basically, it is the theater of our lives, where each and every one of us con-structs our future dreams. However, sometimes these dreams are devastated because of frequent natural disasters es-specially cyclone and people of Bangladesh are recurrently facing these types of disasters, among them cyclone SIDR was most catastrophic.

The study highlights two approaches used in housing reconstruction in Bangladesh following the cyclone SIDR. In the sense of sustainability with respect to Tables 2 and 3 it is understood that owner driven housing solution prevails in the study area and the donor driven solution diminishing gradually. More than 54% of all surveyed houses have been trans-formed or modified. This message testifies the reality that top-down approach can’t contribute the success of post dis-aster housing programs.

However, the main finding of this study is that victims in the owner-driven houses are much healthy and well suited, and the donor driven houses are weak and ill-suited in terms of planning and construction aspects. In other sense, from the victim's point of view, the owner-driven housing approach is more successful than the donor-driven. Following the above discussion, it can be recapitulated that the owner driven housing approach has been in superior in terms of affordability, quality, durability, space availability, flexibility to use diverse materials in wall or roof and to make any changes in the future, proper ventilation arrangement, heavy foundation, sufficient plinth level, provision of ceiling and better roofing arrangements. While having a look at these parameters during the post occupancy evaluation, it can be concluded that the victim’s involvement throughout the conception, planning and construction process may result significant success in PDHR programs. Finally, the drive to transform the donor driven houses with indigenous, sustain-able and disaster resilient thoughts in providing successful PDHR programs has the potential for promising results.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported to this paper.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception, data collection, analysis, and manuscript writing. Along with all authors read and approved the manuscript.

Ahmed A. U., Appadurai A. N., and Neelormi S. (2019). Status of climate change adaptation in south asia region. In Status of climate change adaptation in Asia and the Pacific, pages 125–152. Springer.
Ahmed I. and Charlesworth E. (2015). Housing and resilience: case studies from srilanka. In Recovery from the Indian Ocean Tsunami, pages 417–434. Springer.
Alexandrova M. and Ivanova L. (2012). Critical success factors of project management: empirical evidence from projects supported by eu programmes. Systematic Economic Crisis: Current issues and persperctive.
Aryal J. P., Sapkota T. B., Khurana R., Khatri-Chhetri A., et al. (2020). Climate change mitigation options among farmers in south asia. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(4):3267–3289.
Ashmore J., Babister E., Corsellis T., Fowler J., Kelman I., Manfield P., Mcrobie A., Spence R., Vitale A., Battilana R. and Crawford, K. (2003). Diversity and adaptation of shelters in transitional settlements for IDPs in Afghanistan. Disasters, 27(4). 273–287.
Babister E. and Kelman I. (2002). The Emergency Shelter Process with Application to Case Studies in Macedonia and Afghanistan. Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, January. . Online only.
Baldwin W., Vecchi G. A., and Bordoni S. (2019). The direct and ocean mediated influence of asian orography on tropical precipitation and cyclones. Climate dynamics, 53(1):805–824.
Barakat S. (2003). Housing reconstruction after conflict and disaster. Humanitarian Policy Group, Network Papers, 43:1–40.
Barenstein J. D. (2006). Housing reconstructionin post-earthquake gujarat,a comparative analysis. Humanitarian Policy Group, Network Papers.
Bredenoord J. (2017). Sustainable building materials for low-cost housing and the challenges facing their technological developments: Example sand lessons regarding bamboo, earth-block technologies, building blocks of recycled materials, and improved concrete panels. Journal of Architectural Engineering Technology, 6(1):1–11.
Chang Y., Wilkinson S., Potangaroa R., and Seville E. (2012). Resourcing for post-disaster reconstruction: a comparative study of Indonesia and china. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal.
Choudhury N. Y., Paul A., and Paul B.K. (2004). Impact of costal embankment on the flash flood in bangladesh: a case study. Applied Geography, 24(3):241–258.
Cuny, F. (1983). Disasters and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Da Silva J. and Batchelor V. (2010). Indonesia: Understanding agency policy in a national context. Building back better, page 135.
Davidson C. H., Johnson C., Lizarralde G., Dikmen N., and Sliwinski A. (2007). Truths and myths about community participation in post-disaster housing projects. Habitat international, 31(1):100–115.
Djalante, R. (2018). A systematic literature review of research trends and authorships on natural hazards, disasters, risk reduction and climate change in indonesia. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 18(6):1785–1810.
Drozd W., Agnieszka L., and Zaworski S. (2018). Construction time of three wall types made of locally sourced materials: A comparative study. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering.
Edenhofer O. (2015). Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change, volume 3. Cambridge University Press.
Freeman P. K. (2004). Allocation of post-disaster reconstruction financing to housing. Building Research & Information, 32(5):427–437.
Ganapati N. E. and Ganapati S. (2008). Enabling participatory planning after disasters: A case study of the world bank’s housing reconstruction in turkey. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(1):41–59.
GoB. (2008). Cyclone sidr in bangladesh: Damage, loss and needs assessment for disaster recovery and reconstruction. ministry of dis-aster management, dhaka.
GoB. (2008a). Super cyclone sidr 2007: Impacts and strategies for interventions. dhaka: Ministry of food and disaster management, bangladesh secretariat.
GoB. (2007). Super cyclone sidr 2007: Emergency response and action plans interim report. dhaka: Ministry of food and disaster management, bangladesh secretariat.
Hamdan A. N. H., Abbas A. A., and Najm A. T. (2019). Flood hazard analysis of proposed regulator on shatt al-arab river. Hydrology, 6(3):80.
Hidayat B. et al. (2014). The role of knowledge communication in the effective management of post-disaster reconstruction projects in Indonesia. PhD thesis, University of Salford.
Innes J. E. and Booher D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning theory & practice, 5(4):419–436.
Islam M. T., Charlesworth M., Aurangojeb M., Hemstock S., Sikder S. K., Hassan M. S., Dev P. K., and Hossain M. Z. (2021). Revisiting disaster preparedness in coastal communities since 1970s in bangladesh with an emphasis on the case of tropical cyclone amphan in may 2020. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, page 102175.
Karunasena G. and Rameezdeen R. (2010). Post-disaster housing reconstruction: Comparative study of donor vs owner-driven approaches. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment.
Kovats S. and Akhtar R. (2008). Climate, climate change and human health in asian cities. Environment and Urbanization, 20(1):165–175.
Lloyd-Jones T. (2006). Mind the Gap! Post-disaster reconstruction and the transition from humanitarian relief. RICS.
Moe T. L., Gehbauer F., Senitz S., and Mueller M. (2007). Balanced scorecard for natural disaster management projects. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal.
Nazara S. and Resosudarmo B. P. (2007). Aceh-nias reconstruction and rehabilitation: Progress and challenges at the end of 2006. Technical report, ADBI Discussion Paper.
Paul B. K. and Nadiruzzaman M. (2013). Post-sidr public housing assistance in bangladesh: a case study. Environmental Hazards, 12(2):166–179.
Paul B. K. (2012). Factors affecting evacuation behavior: The case of 2007 cyclone sidr, bangladesh. The Professional Geographer, 64(3):401–414.
Paul B. K. (2009) Why relatively fewer people died? the case of bangladesh’s cyclone sidr. Natural Hazards, 50(2):289–304, 2009.
Paul B. K. (2008). Hazard Warnings and Compliance with Evacuation Orders: The Case of Bangladesh’s Cyclone Sidr. Natural Hazards, Center.
Peppiatt D., Mitchell J., and Holzmann P. (2001). Cash transfers in emergencies: evaluating benefits and assessing risks. Overseas Development Institute London.
Quarantelli E. L. (1995). Patterns of shelter and housing in US disasters. Disaster Prevention and Management, 4(3). 43–53.
Rand E. C., Hirano S. and Kelman I. (2011). Posttsunami housing resident satisfaction in Aceh. International Development Planning Review, 33(2). 187–211.
Seidler, R., Dietrich, K., Schweizer, S., Bawa, K., Chopde, S., Zaman, F., Sharma, A., Bhattacharya, S., Devkota, L. P. and Khaling, S. (2018). Progress on integrating climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction for sustainable development pathways in south asia: Evidence from six research projects. International journal of disaster risk reduction, 31:92–101.
Sesnan B. (2004). The case for cash: Goma after the nyiragongo eruption. ODI, Humanitarian Exchange, 28.
Skoufias E., Kawasoe Y., Strobl E., and Acosta P. A. (2019). Identifying the vulnerable to poverty from natural disasters: The case of typhoons in the philippines. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, (8857).
Snarr D. N. and Brown E. L. (1980). User satisfaction with permanent post-disaster housing: two years after hurricane Fifi in Honduras.Disasters, 4(1). 83–91.
Snarr D. N. and Brown E. L. (1982). Attrition and housing improvements: a study of post-disaster. Disasters, 6(2). 125–131.
Snarr D. N. and Brown E. L. (1994). Post-disaster housing reconstruction: a longitudinal study of resident satisfaction. Disasters, 18(1). 76–80.
Southkali Union Profile. http://southkhaliup.bagerhat.gov.bd/sites.
Tariq T. and Ahmed Z. (2013). Effects of roof treatment on thermal performance of residential buildings in dhaka. In PLEA.
The daily star, wednesday, November. (2021). Sidr was one of the fiercest cyclones. https://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-11998.
The World Bank. (2013a). Building urban resilience. doi:https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8865-5.
Turner J. F. C. (1976). Housing by people (london, marion boyars). Urban Foundation, (1980) Soweto (Johannesburg, Urban Foundation).
Vishnu S., Sanjay J., and Krishnan R. (2019). Assessment of climatological tropical cyclone activity over the north Indian ocean in the cordexsouth asia regional climate models. Climate Dynamics, 53(7):5101– 5118, 2019.

No competing interests reported.

Post Occupancy Evaluation of Housing Reconstruction After Cyclone Sidr

Archived Versions:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methodology

Results

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Archived Versions:

Version 1