Community Based Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction in Indonesia (Case Study: Rekompak, Aceh)

1. Asrizal Luthfi
PLAN 495
Land, Housing and Community

2.  The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami devastated
Aceh, Indonesia, triggering the one of the
largest reconstruction operations since the
SecondWorld War (Daly et al. 2012)
 The reconstruction dealt with the construction
of 120,000 new houses and rehabilitation of
85,000 damaged houses.
 Limited studies on community based post-
disaster housing reconstructions

3.  Large scale housing reconstruction program
(over 120,000 houses)  the most
challenging and problematic activities
 How successful the community participation
into post-disaster housing reconstruction?

4.  Community based 
reached level 1 (empower)
or 2 (collaborate)
(Ophyandry et al, 2013)
 Empower: community can
act as an owner, a
supervisor or a contractor
for their own houses
reconstruction (Ophyandry
et al, 2013)
Ladder of community participation
(Davidson et. al., 2007)

5.  Community participation was superior than
contractor based approach on post-disaster
housing project
Housing reconstruction index in Aceh (Dercon and Kusumawijaya, 2007)

6.  Rekompak project rehabilitated or reconstructed a total of
approximately 15,000 houses
 Objective: increase the ability of communities to restore adequate living
conditions, by building seismic-resistant houses and organizing
settlements
 Approach: community-based
 The beneficiaries are at the center of the action
 Requires homeowners to be in charge of the reconstruction or rehabilitation
of their homes
 Homeowners could reconstruct the houses by themselves, together with their
neighbors, or with the help of hired laborers under the supervision of the
homeowner.
 Facilitators provided technical assistance and supervision
 Allowed flexibility in applying individual preferences and personal style to
housing design

7. Challenges Solutions
Beneficiaries with inadequate knowledge of
construction methods
Provision of continuous and close supervision by
well-trained field
Inadequate seismic-resistant structural quality Provision of trained technical facilitators and
implementation of auditing construction quality
Weak and improper financial management Linking fund release to physical progress and
effective complaint handling mechanisms
Inaccurate targeting of beneficiaries Strict and transparent application of agreed upon
criteria for selecting eligible beneficiaries
Double dipping or one beneficiary claiming more
than one house
Closely involving the community and local leaders
in targeting of beneficiaries
Escalating costs of materials and labor in large
scale reconstruction
Provision of core houses rather than complete
houses
Fewer women than men participated in Rekompak
activities
Held separate formal and informal forums
specifically for women
Houses with incomplete infrastructure and lack of
access to services
Ensure close coordination to avoid delays in
provision of electricity and water facilities
Source:World Bank (2012)

8.  Community based housing reconstruction is
more satisfying the beneficiaries.
 Rekompak’s housing reconstruction project
classified as community-based housing
reconstruction.
 Rekompak’s reached empower level according
to Ladder of community participation

9.  Recommendation: Community based
housing reconstruction project needs gender
training for facilitators
 Further research: sustainability of housing?
 there are many people move from that area or
not?if they move, what is the reason?
 Is the owner modified their housing?if they
modified it, what is the reason?