1. Emerging stronger?
Assessing the impact of Habitat for
Humanity’s housing reconstruction
programme following the Indian
Ocean Tsunami
Victoria Maynard
University College London
Habitat for Humanity Great Britain
vmaynard@habitatforhumanity.org.uk

2. Indian Ocean Tsunami: 2004
3 million people affected: 1.5 million lost livelihoods
440,000 new homes needed: Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, India

3. 25,000 families served

4. Research design
To what extent had Habitat for Humanity’s housing
reconstruction programmes contributed to the development of
sustainable communities and livelihoods?

5. Research design
people
planet
www.oasys-software.com/
products/environmental/aspire.html

6. Data collection

7. Data analysis
www.oasys-software.com/
products/environmental/aspire.html

8. product
site selection and settlement planning
house design and construction
access to services

9. Site selection/settlement planning

In-situ reconstruction had benefits in terms of
maintaining access to social networks, livelihoods
and social infrastructure. BUT… while relocated
communities were less vulnerable to natural hazards
they had reduced access to education and
livelihoods.

HFH worked with the whole community as part of
the reconstruction process. BUT… HFH’s approach
to the built environment focussed on re-building
houses rather than settlements. It’s programmes
typically didn’t incorporate hazard assessment,
planning and infrastructure at a settlement level.

10. House design and construction

HFH programmes in all four countries provided a
simple single-storey “core home” which could later
be extended. BUT… Many households had made
the same alterations and extensions, relatively
quickly after receiving their houses. Does this
indicate limitations in the original design?

Core homes were typically masonry construction
with a flat or pitched roof. BUT… where new
technologies or seismic detailing had been
introduced extensions typically reverted to
traditional techniques.

11. Access to services

HFH typically provided toilets for each household.
BUT… many households no longer used them.

HFH typically provided electricity to each household.
BUT… where solar technologies had been
introduced these were not fully understood.

HFH’s programme did not specifically target fuel
consumption. BUT… many households had stopped
using wood or charcoal for cooking.

HFH’s programme did not specifically target
education. BUT… most households felt that HFH's
programme had increased access to education.

12. process
community engagement
relationships with other actors

13. Community engagement

HFH typically targeted vulnerable groups and the
programme had increased community cohesion.

HFH developed a different design for each country.
BUT… households felt changes were not allowed.

Different approaches to construction were taken in
each country. Local sourcing of materials and labour
had the greatest short and long-term impact.

Do many of the challenges experienced have the
same root cause? Did HFH ‘inform’ or ‘consult’ with
communities, rather than work in ‘partnership’ or
‘delegate power’?
Source: Arnstein (1969)

14. Other actors

HFH’s focus on working in partnership with
communities, government and other NGOs meant
that the project had improved linkages between the
communities assisted and external actors.

In many cases HFH also established positive
relationships with material suppliers, labourers and
larger contractors; supporting wider economic
recovery during the reconstruction process.

HFH did not have a systematic approach to
supporting livelihood recovery. Perhaps this would
be better achieved through partnership with
specialist actors?

15. Conclusions

HFH’s programme had made a significant
contribution to the development of sustainable
communities and livelihoods.
 Houses, land tenure and services
 Benefits to health and well-being
 Increased community cohesion
 Relationships with external actors.

The programme had also contributed to wider
environmental and economic recovery, although to
a lesser extent.

16. Lessons

The need for participation in decision-making
throughout the project – design, construction,
maintenance and replication.

The importance of considering the long-term use of
houses, infrastructure, construction materials or
technologies from the outset.

The need to consider communities and settlements
in addition to families and houses - hazard
assessment, settlement planning, infrastructure.

The importance of a holistic approach to recovery of
people’s lives and livelihoods focused on outcomes.

17. Thank you
Co-authors:
Priti Parikh, University College London
Dan Simpson, HFH International
Jo da Silva, Arup International Development
Contact me via:
Victoria Maynard, HFH Great Britain
vmaynard@habitatforhumanity.org.uk
www.resilienturbanism.org