principle of Starting with what people know, have
begun with architects and engineers finding out
how people are building already, and, in particular,
what they are doing already to reduce disaster risks.
They then work to produce improved designs that
incorporate much of the traditional elements. In
such cases, the architects and engineers must not
assume that they know better than the traditional
builders. They must work together in partnership,
perhaps modifying the design several times before
arriving at a model all stakeholders are happy
with. Some recent reconstruction projects and
programmes, e.g. the ERRA programme in Azad
Jammu and Kashmir and North West Frontier
Provinces of Pakistan (see case 1 in the section
Applications below) have followed this approach.
What do we need to learn?
In order to build back better, stakeholders in
reconstruction jointly need to find answers to four
sets of key questions:
1. Why were people vulnerable to the hazard that
occurred? Did vulnerabilities differ amongst
various categories of people (e.g. men/women;
owners/tenants; land owners/landless; able/
disabled)? Has the disaster further aggravated
the pre-disaster vulnerabilities? Who are the
individuals or categories that are particularly
at risk and will need special attention in
reconstruction? These questions can be
answered through vulnerability assessments.
2. What made people’s housing vulnerable to the
hazard? What were the predominant building
technologies and what were their relevant
strengths and weaknesses? What factors
affected disaster resistance within single
technologies? These questions can be answered.
through damage assessments.
3. What is the likelihood of disasters happening in
this particular location? Does it have particular
geographic features that make it vulnerable?
James Y.C. Yen on Learning
‘Go to the people
Live among the people
Learn from the people
Plan with the people
Work with the people
Start with what the people know
Build on what the people have
Teach by showing; learn by doing
Not a showcase but a pattern
Not odds and ends but a system
Not piecemeal but an integrated approach
Not to confirm but to transform
Not relief but release.’
Are there any other risks besides those directly
related to the disaster? These questions can be
answered through disaster risk assessments.
4. What are the local capabilities, amongst
residents as well as builders, to build in
disaster-resistant ways? Are the required
resources for reconstruction (manpower with
the right skills and materials) available at the
necessary scale? Damage assessments can be
designed to find out more about capabilities.
Determining whether the resources are available
should be part of assessments of needs and
resources, treated in more detail in PCR Tool 4.
How can we learn?
The four assessment methods highlighted in the
above section are examples of learning methods
specifically designed to provide answers to
particular questions. We will explain those in
more detail in the text below and PCR Tool 4:
Assessment of Reconstruction Needs and
Resources. There are, however, a number of
additional participatory tools available that can
help to answer the above questions. Many planning
tools start off with developing an understanding
of a particular set of problems, which is a
learning process. Practical Action South Asia has
summarised participatory learning and action tools
in a technical brief. Community Action Planning
(CAP) can also be a good learning experience
for participants; this is further described in the
Community Planning Website. For more detail, see
the resources at the end of this tool and PCR Tool
7: Planning with the People.
1 Vulnerability Assessment
Disasters do not result from hazards alone, but
from the impact of those hazards on communities
that are vulnerable and poorly prepared. Disasters
are not inevitable and communities are not
helpless. Action can be taken to build resilience
to hazards and strengthen capacity to adapt to
change. Practical Action has developed “from
Vulnerability to Resilience (V2R)”, a framework
to analyse vulnerability and plan for building
community resilience to guide this action.
Vulnerability is multi-dimensional; its roots may
lie in weak livelihoods; hazards and stresses;
future uncertainty (i.e. related to climate change);
or a poor governance environment. In the case
of the Alto Mayo, highlighted at the start of
this tool, livelihoods had weakened, governance
was worsening, and there were known risks
of earthquakes and floods in the region. More
recently, in Haiti, poverty played a major role, in
exacerbating vulnerability to the earthquake. As
72.1% of the population lived on less than $2 per
day, people could not afford to employ qualified
labour and built houses with poor quality materials.
3