Advantages and disadvantages of leaving quality for the people to decide
+ people themselves know best which construction
technologies they are able to implement and can afford
+ leaving decisions on quality to the people allows them
to accommodate what is important to them in terms of
culture, tradition, skills and experience
+ quality standards that are locally decided often allow
greater use of local materials and building artisans,
which can boost livelihood recovery in the area; they
may also be more environmentally friendly
+ there is more scope for recycling materials and
components from the previous house, where people
decide on quality.
- people sometimes have insufficient knowledge of
construction, and particularly of what is needed to make
houses disaster-resistant
- people may not know how to control the quality of
materials they buy - locally produced materials may not
meet national standards
- some agencies, particularly those adopting a cash for
shelter approach and those concerned with keeping
overheads low, provide inadequate information and
support to their beneficiaries who are left to make
decisions about quality on their own. This often leads to
inadequate reconstruction quality
- aid workers providing support to people’s construction
processes are educated in modern construction and may
have inadequate knowledge of vernacular construction
- retro-fitting is a largely unknown concept to informal
builders.
How to decide what approach to take?
It is important not to make hasty decisions on
standards for reconstruction, but to take sufficient
time to consider all available data and get them
right. These decisions need to involve all key
stakeholders, and especially representatives of
disaster victims and of affected local authorities.
This may not be easy at a time where everybody
is stretched, and many are urging to get
reconstruction under way as quickly as possible.
Decision making will be made a lot easier after
gathering relevant information in the following three
ways:
• regulatory audit
• damage assessment
• scenario evaluation
Regulatory audit
This is a tool suggested by Payne and Majale
(2004); they have applied it to land registration
and the physical planning of settlements, but it
could equally be used to take stock of and assess
the performance of any standards or regulations to
do with disaster resistance. Regulatory audits not
only consider the technical aspects and how these
diminished or contributed to collapse or damage
in disasters, but also how such standards are
implemented.
Undertaking a detailed regulatory audit after
a disaster may be constrained by the destruction
of key public buildings and records as well as
the death of important stakeholders. However, it
should be possible to build an adequate picture
by not solely relying on documents but also using
the memory of surviving stakeholders. It would, of
course, be preferable to have such audits done in
Main components of a regulatory audit
• Identification of direct and indirect stakeholders
involved in regulating disaster resistance of
buildings
• Compilation and review of relevant documents
about regulation policy, what is regulated and
how the regulation is carried out. This may
include official documents, reviews or evaluations,
academic studies or articles from the press.
• Interviews and discussions with stakeholders
focusing on their awareness of standards and
regulations, how they are implemented and affect
them.
• Assessment and analysis of the information
collected.
• Production of a matrix showing: the nature of the
standard or regulation; the institution responsible
for its implementation; a summary of its effect on
both formal and informal housing and buildings;
whether the regulation is a constraint or incentive
to improved and more resistant buildings; and any
issues emerging.
• Report considering the nature of the standards
and regulations as well as the procedures
involved.
See: Geoffrey Payne and Associates web site,
Resources section: http://www.gpa.org.uk
preparation for eventual disasters. They could, for
instance, be undertaken by academic institutions
as part of their curricula.
8