Fracasos

16 Sourced at the official website of the District People’s Committee at

https://quangninh.quangbinh.gov.vn/3cms/tong-quan-51342.htm, accessed Dec 2016.

Tan Ninh

140

coping with flooding, thanks to a long history of facing flood disasters. They usually build a sub-floor in their houses higher than annual flood levels, or adjust crop patterns or harvesting times in accordance with climate occurrence. In addition, most households have a small boat for transportation in the flooding season. However, due to climate change, floods in recent years have been more severe and unpredictable for local people in terms of their frequency and intensity.

The floods in 2010 are a good example, since they exceeded all big floods of the past and seriously devastated the commune. Local housing was among the most affected sectors, which experienced significant damage and loss after these events.

Recognizing the importance of improving flood-resistant capacity for local housing here, in 2013, the Vietnam Government, through its Ministry of Construction, selected this commune as one of the beneficiary sites for a flood-resistant housing reconstruction project. This project, called 716, provided

permanent flood-proof houses for poor households who live in the extremely low-lying areas and whose existing houses were severely damaged by previous floods, especially the 2010 flood. This project was completed in late 2013, with fifty flood-resistant houses built in this commune, known as the donor-built houses, examined by this study. According to the interviewed households, the design of these donor-built houses was conducted in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders and incorporated with some new design ideas for flood resilience that were different from the local common practices, as highlighted by a local authority staff. For example, the concept of “chòi chống lũ” (flood-preventive shelter), where a two-story structure with a floor higher than the biggest flood level in the past was proposed. In response to the local context, some donor-built houses incorporate this structure in their main house to better accommodate current living functions. These are further analysed in the next section in

comparison with the self-built houses constructed by people after the 2010 flood.

The Difference between Donor-Built and Self-Built Post-Disaster Housing There are three features that make donor-built different from self-built housing (Figure 4.25). The donor-built houses were built with the use of (i) the provision of a stronger structure with a higher floor than those that are self-built, (ii) a larger area of the flood shelter to adequately accommodate living functions in normal times, and (iii) technical assistance for housing design and construction.

141

Donor-built Housing Self-built Housing

Figure 4.25: Difference between donor-built and self-built housing in terms of building height (single story for self-built while double story for donor-built)

In terms of building structure, as seen in the 716 houses, a double story structure made of reinforced concrete (RC) was provided in which the second floor is relatively high, above 3.6 meters (Figure 4.26). As explained by the project’s technical staff, the high level of the second floor helps protect occupants and their assets from super floods like the 2010 events, and offers an adequate space underneath for living functions. On the other side, in the self-built houses, flood shelter is still temporarily made with wooden planks and has floor levels much lower than the donor-built, below 2.7 meters as observed in the surveyed houses.

Flood shelter usually exists in the form of a heightened sub-floor right under the roof of the main house, locally called chạn or tra.

Related to the usable space of flood shelter, the donor-built houses show a larger area than their self-built counterparts. As observed, all five donor-built houses have their flood shelter with a minimum floor area of 12 square meters, while the area of flood shelter in the self-built is equal to or lower than 5 square meters.

With a larger floor area, the donor-built houses can use the flood shelter for other functions such as sleeping, children studying, or farming product storage.

However, the limited floor area of the flood shelter in self-built housing only allows its use for keeping a few valuable items of the family, in normal times.

142

Donor-built Housing Self-built Housing

Figure 4.26: Different levels of flood-resistant floors between donor-built and self-built housing

Concerning the use of community consultation for housing design generation and development, the design of donor-built housing received external support from a wide range of stakeholders, including the province and local governments, community members, and professional consultants. At that time, the NGO Development Workshop France worked as the professional and technical consultant for this project, to add disaster-resistant features to the building

structure and to monitor construction. The design of the 716 houses also involved methods of community consultation from the beginning phase of the project, to capture local needs and capacity before developing design and construction solutions. However, in self-built housing, only two local actors are seen in its formation: homeowners, and local construction workers hired by them. In addition, support from other external parties, especially building designers, was unseen in the construction of self-built housing. In terms of people’s acceptance, three out of the five donor-built households interviewed were satisfactory with their 716 houses provided by the government.

Summary

The Tan Ninh Commune is situated in a low-lying area where annual floods are the biggest natural hazards to the local life and people’s housing. Similar to the

143

three case studies above, this commune sees the presence of both donor-built and self-built houses provided after previous floods, particularly the big flood in 2010.

The donor-built and self-built houses constructed after this flood have some similarities and differences in terms of structural and formal performance.

Specifically, both donor-built and self-built houses have a second floor higher than normal flood levels, to protect people and household items from flooding.

However, this floor exists in the form of a small garret under the roof of the self-built houses, while in the donor-self-built ones this was self-built as a second storey for a living functional space (e.g. bedroom, children study room). Such similarities and differences are further analysed against the research themes of this thesis, in the next chapters.

4.4 Conclusion

This chapter provides an overview of the four case-study sites selected for this research. In general, these sites are prone to floods and/or typhoons, and people living there belong to poor and near poor groups with limited resources and capacity for coping with natural disasters. Their housing is among their most valuable but also their most vulnerable items, which has a close link with household poverty, substandard living conditions, and ongoing risk to future climate hazards.

Post-disaster housing provided in these case-study sites was implemented by both donors (donor-built) and people (self-built). The number of donor-built houses is relatively modest in comparison with their self-built counterparts. It was found that there are several features that make donor-built houses different from self-built ones, ranging from technical issues such as building structure and spatial arrangement, to social aspects such as community consultation, the involvement of built-environment professionals (i.e. architects, engineers), and the

responsiveness to socio-economic and cultural conditions of inhabitants through design solutions.

In general, donor-built houses show a better performance in terms of disaster risk reduction, while self-built ones are more efficient in responding to

socio-economic and cultural conditions of occupants. This indicates that, although the donor-built houses were designed in support of community consultation, the involved architects were still not fully aware of what people actually aspired for their houses, and thus, the design outcomes of safe housing were not really

144

responsive to the need and aspirations of inhabitants. This relates to the ways of conducting community consultation, engaging built-environment professionals, and incorporating community feedback into resilient housing design options.

These issues are further analysed in the next chapters, to provide a clearer

understanding of how these issues affect the resilience of households and to what extent they are linked and support each other in reaching a resilient housing system. These are also framed within the three key themes of this thesis, namely (i) community participation and consultation, (ii) the role of BEPs, and (iii) design principles for resilience, that are critically analysed in the next three chapters.

Specifically, in terms of community participation and consultation, the case studies show that it is necessary to identify suitable ways of discussion with beneficiary communities, who should be involved in the discussion; and show what mechanisms should be based to frame the discussion towards the desired outcomes of disaster-resilient housing. In relation to the role BEPs, it is important to determine at which stages building designers or architects/engineers are needed and what technical inputs are demanded from them in shaping resilient housing design options. Regarding design principles for resilience, the technical,

economic and social dimensions of disaster-resilient housing should be carefully considered, to inform and shape housing design options that are not only resilient to storms and floods but also appropriate to the local socio-economic and cultural conditions of the involved group or community. Further discussion and analysis of these aspects are provided in the next three chapters.

145

Chapter 5 : Community Participation, Consultation and Communication

5.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the key findings from the four case studies mentioned in the last chapter in terms of the first theme of this thesis, Community Participation, Consultation, and Communication, in three main sections. The first section is the examination of the consultation and communication forms that emerged from the process of post-disaster housing reconstruction at the case-study sites (Figure 5.1).

The second section is the identification of key stakeholders whose consultative inputs are significant to promoting disaster-resilient housing. The third section focuses on a broader view to examine the need for supportive mechanisms to enable interactive discussions and shared learning dialogues between stakeholders involved in the design, procurement, and construction of local housing.

Figure 5.1: Three main components of community consultation for building disaster-resilient housing