Available

Available online
online at
at www.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia
Procedia Engineering
Engineering 00
00 (2017)
(2017) 000–000
000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 667–674

7th International Conference on Building Resilience; Using scientific knowledge to inform policy
and practice in disaster risk reduction, ICBR2017, 27 – 29 November 2017, Bangkok, Thailand

The Evaluation of Community Participation in Post-Disaster

Housing Reconstruction Projects in Malaysia
Ruhizal Roosliab,
ab,*, a b
Jestin Nordina, Geoff O'Brienb
a
a School
School of
of Housing,
Housing, Building
Building &
& Planning,
Planning, Universiti
Universiti Sains
Sains Malaysia,
Malaysia, 11800
11800 USM,
USM, Penang,
Penang, Malaysia
Malaysia
bb
Faculty
Faculty of
of Engineering
Engineering &
& Environment,
Environment, Northumbria
Northumbria University,
University, Ellison
Ellison Building,
Building, Newcastle
Newcastle Upon
Upon Tyne,
Tyne, NE1
NE1 8ST,
8ST, United
United Kingdom
Kingdom

Abstract
Abstract

This
This research
research focused
focused on on post-disaster planning with
post-disaster planning with aa particular
particular reference
reference to to housing.
housing. TheThe question
question is is on
on what
what
stakeholders
stakeholders must
must learn
learn from
from the
the ineffective implementation of
ineffective implementation of existing
existing policies
policies and
and approaches.
approaches. WhyWhy this
this issue
issue is
is
never
never acted
acted upon?
upon? However,
However, policypolicy implementation
implementation tendstends toto forget
forget the
the importance
importance of of accounting
accounting forfor community
community
input,
input, especially
especially considering
considering that that the people affected
the people affected will
will be
be the
the end
end users
users of
of the
the product
product ofof government
government services
services and
and
the
the agencies
agencies involved.
involved. This
This research
research waswas divided
divided into
into three
three phases.
phases. The
The first
first phase
phase was
was the
the Literature
Literature Review
Review Phase
Phase
during
during which
which secondary
secondary sources
sources were
were compiled,
compiled, reviewed,
reviewed, comprehended, analyzed and
comprehended, analyzed and finally
finally synthesized
synthesized to to form
form
aa reference construct. Based on this related information, a theoretical framework for this study was
reference construct. Based on this related information, a theoretical framework for this study was developed along developed along
with
with aa questionnaire
questionnaire form
form used
used for
for the
the research
research data
data collection.
collection. Afterward,
Afterward, the the second phase was
second phase was the
the quantitative
quantitative
interview
interview phase
phase and
and in
in the
the last
last phase
phase is is the
the data
data analysis
analysis phase.
phase. This
This research
research provides
provides aa thorough
thorough analysis
analysis ofof the
the
views
views and
and perceptions
perceptions of of the
the focus
focus group
group atat Kuala
Kuala Muda
Muda andand Tanjong
Tanjong Tokong
Tokong Tsunami
Tsunami Victims.
Victims. The
The outcome
outcome of of
this
this research
research reveals
reveals the
the importance
importance of of ensuring
ensuring that
that policy
policy makers
makers areare responsive
responsive andand have
have aa grasp
grasp onon current
current
research
research findings,
findings, in
in particular
particular on on the
the subject
subject ofof the
the status
status of
of policy
policy implementation.
implementation. The The research
research outcomes
outcomes cancan be
be
used
used to
to develop
develop strategies
strategies and and actions that include
actions that include raising
raising awareness
awareness andand building
building capacity
capacity for
for enhancing
enhancing thethe
enforcement
enforcement of of current
current legislation.
legislation.
©
© 2017
2017 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.
Ltd.
© 2018 The Authors.
Peer-review under Published by
responsibility of Elsevier Ltd. committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience.
the scientific
Peer-review
Peer-review under responsibility of the
under responsibility of the scientific committee of
scientific committee of the
the 7th
7th International
International Conference
Conference on
on Building
Building Resilience.
Resilience.

Keywords:
Keywords: disaster
disaster preparedness,
preparedness, community
community resilience,
resilience, community
community participation,
participation, housing
housing reconstruction
reconstruction

*
* Corresponding
Corresponding author.
author. Tel.:
Tel.: +6
+6 04
04 653
653 5396;
5396; fax:
fax: +6
+6 04
04 657
657 6523.
6523.
E-mail
E-mail address:
address: ruhizal@usm.my
ruhizal@usm.my

1877-7058
1877-7058 ©© 2017
2017 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.
Ltd.
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of
of the
the scientific
scientific committee
committee of
of the
the 7th
7th International
International Conference
Conference on
on Building
Building Resilience.
Resilience.

1877-7058 © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 7th International Conference on Building Resilience
10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.086
668 Ruhizal Roosli et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 667–674
2 Roosli et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

1. Introduction

This study took great care in measuring the main outcome measure, the current state of the involvement of
disaster victims in reconstruction projects. Housing reconstruction after a disaster is a crucial issue because of
physical, social, psychological and environmental effects [1]. An improved strategy is crucial for accelerating the
reconstruction process for upgrading the conditions of human settlements. Community participation is a key term for
understanding the social needs of communities [2]. Community participation is viewed by some as a way for
stakeholders to influence development by contributing to project design, influencing public choices, and holding
public institutions accountable for the goods and services they provide [3]. Some view participation as the direct
engagement of affected populations in the project cycle—assessment, design, implementation, monitoring, and
evaluation—in a variety of forms. Still others consider participation to be an operating philosophy that places
affected populations at the heart of humanitarian and development activities as social actors with insights,
competencies, energy, and ideas of their own [4].
Thus, the aim of the study is to find more satisfactory solutions for victims by evaluating the housing
reconstruction projects of their own or authorities from the social point of view. This is an exploratory research for
gaining an in-depth understanding of the issues related to building regulations: ability to comply with regulations
and compare their willingness to support these regulations; benefits of community and agency engagement; and
community participation. This study embarks on the following objectives as follows:

• To investigate the level of community participation in housing reconstruction after disasters;

• To investigate community understanding of building regulations;
• To determine the readiness of community participation in terms of knowledge, resources and other influences
that might affect decision making; and
• To offer recommendations on the key strategies of community participation.

2. Background

From 1968 to 2004, Malaysia experienced 39 disasters. The 2004 tsunami was the worst [5]. Forty-nine percent
of these disasters were attributed to natural disasters. Heavy rain (primary disaster) causing floods and landslides
(secondary disaster) dominated most of those natural disasters [6]. Poorly controlled land use, the design of
buildings, the maintenance of equipment and machinery and the attitudes of personnel in regulatory compliance
inevitably add to the potential for disasters (secondary disaster) [7]. Moreover, failures in regulation and compliance
were identified as the key causes of vulnerability and disaster in Malaysia. Organizational error and regulatory
failures were the main types of hidden error that contributed significantly to the disasters with 53.6 and 37 percent,
respectively [8]. Unfortunately, according to local experience in Malaysia suggested by recent academic efforts, no
work has been conducted to understand community participation in housing reconstruction programs after disasters.
Reconstruction begins at the community level. A good reconstruction strategy engages communities and helps
people work together to rebuild their housing, lives, and livelihoods. A very strong commitment and leadership from
the top are needed to implement a bottom-up approach because pressure is strong in an emergency to provide rapid,
top-town, and autocratic solutions. Engagement of the community may bring out different preferences and
expectations; thus, the agencies involved in reconstruction must be open to altering their preconceived vision of the
reconstruction process. Numerous methods exist for community participation, but they need to be adapted to the
context; nearly all require facilitation and other forms of support.
Presently, the shelter needs in Malaysia after disasters cause different habitation modes, which can be
summarized by these alternatives [9]:

• Moving to public shelters;

• Moving to shelters of friends and relatives;
• Moving to a second undamaged house or renting a house; and
• Organizing camps or tent shelters beside the damaged buildings.
 Ruhizal Roosli et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 667–674 669
Roosli et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 3

However, the relocation of affected populations to new and safe sites can be an effective tool to reduce the
probable secondary disaster and to create a resilient community [10]. Relocation always affects the behavior of
disaster victims by changing their daily activities and livelihood. Disaster victims prefer not to be relocated and to
stay close to their home, and if possible, they try to rebuild their shelter. Their capability to rebuild their own house
according to situational needs without reference to building codes is also being questioned. Housing should be built
according to rules and regulations and controlled by authority through inspection, incentive and punitive measures.
With regard to the issues concerning who should play a major part in the reconstruction process, a majority of the
affected population and regulators usually seek minimal government involvement to avoid steep taxes and more
importantly to avoid bureaucracy that would complicate the situation (e.g. legal actions and mass media attention)
[11]. The only way to comply with the specific requirement in providing temporary accommodation is by
establishing collaboration between emergency relief and mechanisms in rehabilitation and to implement planned
programs. This productive solution and atmosphere enables stakeholders to adopt an appropriate recovery strategy
and meet the needs of the population. Thus, scholars have suggested that the approach to housing resettlement
should be based on the reason why the houses are provided.
However, there is a boundary between the involvements of victims in post-recovery work. Commonly, most of
the victims are in a state of trauma even if they had no injuries or damaged buildings [12]. The state of this current
situation limits active participation from victims due to the low capability and physical and mental readiness. They
must be aware of their own skills and readiness before they can become involved in the decision-making process
because mitigation efforts demand a consideration of the legal framework. Disaster victims must take rational action
that facilitates the government to establish self-reliant communities in order to reduce their vulnerability to natural
disasters.
Secondary disasters (collateral disasters) often cause far more damage and problems than a primary disaster (an
initial disaster such as an earthquake that causes or brings in its wake one or more disasters such as a fire or
tsunami). Often the pressures of time, limited contingency budget and people’s needs counteract the demands of
quality and suitability [13]. Undesirable housing conditions due partly or entirely to non-compliance with building
codes and other related legislation is considered a potential risk for moderate or serious harm to the health and safety
of the occupants (or others) of the residential premises [14] such as:

• Physical injury (burns, wounds and serious bodily injuries);

• Psychological distress (sadness, frustration, anxiety and a number of other negative mood states);
• Emotional and psychological trauma; and
• Psychosocial effects as a result of a secondary disaster.

The ability of the built environment to withstand the impacts of natural forces plays a direct role in determining
the casualties and economic costs of disasters. Disaster-resistant construction of buildings and infrastructure is an
essential component of local resiliency [15]. Any post-disaster recovery framework or policy in providing housing
must come with specific rules and regulation such as the Housing Act, Building Codes and Law of Property Act.
Such rules and regulations will give the authority or local authority powers to intervene where housing conditions
are unacceptable to reduce the risk of human casualties [16]. Engineering codes, standards and practices have been
acknowledged and practiced for the prevention of natural hazards. However, investigations after disasters have
revealed shortcomings in construction techniques, code enforcement and the behavior of structures under stress.
On the other hand, it is also important to examine information related to the people who are going to live in the
buildings because lessons can be learned from the involvement of local residents [17]. Local residents have
knowledge of the place they live in. It would be crucial to establish timely contact with local residents and use the
information to guide the rescue effort and fulfill what local residents expect to receive. Efforts without
understanding local needs would result in not only confusion but also a waste of resources [18]. The affected
population must be strongly represented in the body that directs recovery. Representation should be incorporated,
coordinated and extended as part of the recovery planning process. Participatory planning must involve people from
the start of the planning process. It is not enough to simply ask them for their opinion of a plan that has already been
670 Ruhizal Roosli et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 667–674
4 Roosli et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

drawn; rather, decision makers must listen to the communities concerned as input to recovery plans, especially those
related to housing resettlement or reconstruction.
At this juncture, the question is whether the development of the affected community is free from potential risk
when only the authority or local authority plays their part by complying with rules and regulation in providing
housing. Needs assessments should be based on the expressed priorities of the affected communities because
recovery is not just a physical appearance for restoring normality [19]. Therefore, the stakeholders should invest in
and give serious consideration to justice and human rights as part of an attempt to restore peace and promote
democracy and understanding in the post-disaster recovery period.

3. Methodology

This research was divided into three phases. The first phase was the Literature Review Phase during which
secondary sources were compiled, reviewed, comprehended, analyzed and finally synthesized to form a reference
construct. Based on this related information, a theoretical framework (Respondents’ Profile, Inclusiveness,
Awareness and Understanding of the decisions that affect community participation) for this study was developed
along with a questionnaire form used for the research data collection [20, 21]. Afterward, the second phase was the
quantitative interview phase. In the last phase, the data analysis phase, the collected data were then analyzed.
The main focus of this study is on community participation. I used a simple measurement of participation that
randomly selected respondents in each community whether their household had participated in a particular project
decision. The contribution of this study is that separate responses were elicited from each household for several
decisions that are likely to be made from the inception of a project to its operation. These decisions, for reasons
suggested in the previous section, have been grouped according to the theoretical framework. This study took great
care in measuring the main outcome measure, the current state of disaster victims’ involvement in reconstruction
projects. This measure is on a 1-to-5 scale and based on independent information obtained through the group and
non-technical and technical questionnaires.
The data were collected through a series of community-, individual-, and project-level interviews conducted at
two locations as follows:

• Housing Scheme for Tsunami Victims at Permatang Katong Garden in Kota Kuala Muda; and
• Housing Scheme for Tsunami Victims at Floating Mosque Flats.

Taking the opportunity to redevelop the affected area after the tsunami disaster, the Kedah State Government has
drafted a proposal for a New Town Development Plan to relocate the scattered villages along the shore. A minimum
of 6 villages along the coastal area were relocated to the new residential zones (Permatang Katong Garden).
Meanwhile in Penang, a minimum of 4 villages along the coastal area were relocated to the new residential zones
(Floating Mosque Flats).
Whether by interviews or by a mailed survey, the approach was able to obtain the respondents’ co-operation and
motivate them to respond to the questions. The strategies were an advance warning by postcard or letter inviting
participation, an explanation of the selected method of the sampling used, an envelope addressed to the respondent
personally, publicity by the informed head of society, small incentives such as future ventures and the sharing of
findings confidentially, reminders, respondent anonymity, the appearance and quality of the questionnaires,
attractiveness in term of topics to generate interest and return envelopes with glued stamps for returning the
questionnaires (a convenient method for returning questionnaires). A letter informing about the overall purpose of
the study was provided before any interview session began.

4. Findings

In total, 110 respondents participated in this interview. Two types of permanent housing for the tsunami victims
adapted the concept of the People-Friendly Homes Program, a low-cost bungalow (detached house) with an
approximate total floor area of 100 square meter (Figure 1-Permatang Katong Garden) and a low-cost flat (Figure 2-
Floating Mosque Flats). Each of these houses comprised a living/dining room, a kitchen, 3 bedrooms and 2
 Ruhizal Roosli et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 667–674 671
Roosli et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 5

bathrooms. Prior to the tsunami disaster, this special Housing Scheme was initially executed to help low-income
families living in suburban areas in Malaysia to secure decent housing with subsidies under the national budget. The
construction of the RMR Housing for the tsunami victims is fully financed by the Tsunami Fund and solely
developed by SPNB. The affected families who want access to these RMR houses must apply to the respective state
governments for both the land and the house. A loan repayment scheme with subsidies from the Tsunami Fund and
the National Budget will be offered.
A majority of the families comprises married couples living together with their children, followed by families
with more than 2 households (married children who still live together with their parents) and single-parent
households. Fifty-four percent of the respondents in this interview have a household size of between 5-7 persons.
Approximately 93% of the tsunami victims are owner-occupiers whereby 7% are residing on rented tenureship.
Among the various occupations of the respondents are 'fishermen` and agriculture (other); therefore, the sources of
income of many villagers were greatly affected by the tsunami disaster.
The results also found that discussions were likely to involve less technical/engineering input and a greater
knowledge of the community. In contrast, decisions such as the selection of a particular site for the project, its scale
and design are likely to require specific technical knowledge which, given the context of this study area—that is,
relatively poor and small rural communities—is probably better provided by the external agency.
Technical decisions were the only section where the community had a higher opportunity to participate directly
or indirectly–that is, whether the household participated through a representative. Indirect participation is included
for technical decisions because both direct and indirect community participation have a negative effect on
community participation as they crowd out the vital participation of external organization. In the case of
nontechnical decisions, only direct participation is considered because indirect participation is not a good measure of
maximizing community participation and knowledge. Nevertheless, including or excluding indirect participation in
either decision category does not significantly affect the results towards the post-disaster reconstruction process.

a b.

Figs. 1: (a) Front view, (b) Floor area of 1000 sq. ft. & (c) Spaces of the building at Permatang Katong Garden in Kota Kuala Muda.
672 Ruhizal Roosli et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 667–674
6 Roosli et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

a. b.

Figs. 2: (a) Front view & (b) Floor area of 700 sq. ft. at Floating Mosque Flats, Tanjung Bungah Road.

5. Discussion

5.1. Level of community participation in housing reconstruction after disaster

The respondents interviewed generally admitted to having very little knowledge about their opportunities to
become involved in any reconstruction work process. Therefore, the majority admitted a very low level of
involvement except for community leaders and the heads of families. They also have difficulties accessing
information on how the government plan for the reconstruction process will affect them.
The majority of respondents interviewed said they had never been trained to understand the planning and
reconstruction process from the authorities. Some are familiar with the planning and reconstruction process because
they have been active in the program organized by the authorities. They also admitted that the majority of them
never expected to be involved in any manner in these processes. There was no doubt that the respondents
interviewed were anxious about the planning and reconstruction process. Generally, respondents felt they did not
have the required skills to participate in the reconstruction process, especially in the technical section. Thus, they
perceive that post-disaster reconstruction requires different skills and approaches.
Communities are able to identify the existing problems and to prioritize them. This prioritization and the ways to
resolve the problems should be identified by the community consultation and participation because without
considering people’s perspectives, the intervention is not effective and can only result in short-term and temporary
achievements. When people understand the nature and dimensions of problems, they have more incentives for
resolving them. In most participatory activities, people show more flexibility and use their skills to solve their
problems. The success of participatory activities requires continuous dialogue and public awareness within the
community. In this way, the necessary outcomes can be achieved based on research, training and education.

5.2. Community understanding on building and planning regulation

It is not realistic to expect community members to have the technical skill to manage and own reconstruction
activities without adequate and appropriate training and mentoring. Training programs should assess community
capacity and identify training needs and ways to address these needs. In addition to capacity building for members
of the community committee, programs should involve community members in the work of reconstruction programs
and provide training to promote the quality and sustainability of their support. Actors also expressed the view that
although they are not knowledgeable about reconstruction process, they have some input on they expect the
reconstruction programs to provide.
 Ruhizal Roosli et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 667–674 673
Roosli et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 7

Planning for disaster management should be undertaken through a participatory approach and possibly begin with
activities on increasing awareness, public education and risk analysis. This is very important due to the unknown
nature of the risk and ways for reducing it. Therefore, access to existing information sources and a common
understanding of its framework are necessary.

5.3. Readiness of community participation in terms of knowledge, resources and other factors that might affect
decision making

The majority of actors interviewed agreed that victims have the right to know about any reconstruction program
planned for them. They felt that they should also be included in the process of decision making. They felt that if
these conditions are not fulfilled, the affected communities would not be able to benefit from the regulatory
compliance. At the same time, these actions will promote equality and fulfill the needs of the community and not
only achieve the targets of the authorities (HFA Priorities). In addition, the sequence of answers related to the level
of community participation and community understanding on policy and planning processes for disaster
management as described above reveals a ‘lack of readiness’ of disaster victims that reflects Malaysia’s policy and
planning process.
From reviewing many types of evidence, this research argues that there is not yet a readiness in Malaysia’s policy
and planning process for regional revitalization against disasters and that policy decision makers or organizations
are not yet much concerned by this. A reconsideration of policy readiness is needed, and Malaysia policy decision
makers at both national and local levels should seriously take this into consideration. Additionally, a quite different
aspect of administrative behavior in local government organizations for autonomous policy implementation may be
discussed for future research in accordance with this policy-planning approach. In a more bureaucratic system
including the national, prefectural and municipal government, whether it is a top-down system, autonomous policy
implementation by local government is essential for regional revitalization against disasters.

5.4. Recommendation on key strategies of community participation

All governmental and nongovernmental agencies should agree upon and establish procedures for ensuring
community participation in designing reconstruction responses. These procedures should be an essential part of the
immediate response from day one, and they should include the use of participatory of stakeholders. In addition,
public awareness was found to be the main reason for the lack of a reasonable level of community participation in
the reconstruction process. Based on the World Bank Participation Sourcebook [22], the findings of this research
recommended the following:

• To organize preliminary public awareness and outreach activities such as focus group meetings and campaign;
• To consider public awareness and outreach activities such as organize community meetings and hold other
community activities (community plays, fairs, and other cultural events);
• To ensure the readiness of the Malaysia planning and policy process for disaster management through continuity
of policy and planning process; and
• To prioritize needs of victims in HFA contents through a closer alignment between the government’s policies and
assistance programs in order to address the crucial needs of the majority of victims.

6. Conclusion

The purpose of this research was to raise a note of caution toward capacity building and awareness rising among
the disaster communities. Disaster communities need to recognize both their benefits and limitations. Stakeholders
must act together to think beyond organizational or agency boundaries to deal effectively with most problems.
Policy makers must account for and measure what matters, especially in assessing the needs from victims, and be
realistic about any evaluation. Therefore, policy makers should consider who the policy is for from the central
government to local delivery agents and from professionals and service delivery to communities and service users.
The successful management of disasters depends on the actions of the government as well as of the whole society.
674 Ruhizal Roosli et al. / Procedia Engineering 212 (2018) 667–674
8 Roosli et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

This approach can build the capacities of the community, the governmental and non-governmental groups, and the
universities and educational organizations to pace in the same or in almost similar directions. With this increase in
capacities, the approach can also help reduce the burden on the government and benefit from the existing human and
financial resources in the society in order to mobilize them for a successful management of disasters in the future. In
this research, ‘readiness’ was found to be a concept that has been treated by scholars primarily at the individual level
and mainly in the psychological literature on preparedness for personal change efforts. The practicality of this
context to the degree to which policies and plans can respond to the current situation, with an emphasis on the
implementation of the process, is the key to success in the provision of post-disaster housing in Malaysia. Thus,
community readiness is considered a critical indicator of the successful implementation of complex changes to
current situations and risks.

Acknowledgement

This research work was funded by Universiti Sains Malaysia through its Research University Grant Scheme. The
research team gratefully acknowledge use of facilities at the School of Housing, Building & Planning; and the
Faculty of Engineering & Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.

References

[1] I. Davis, Disasters and the Small Dwelling, Pergamon Press, Oxford. 1981.
[2] J. F. C. Turner, Housing by People: Towards Autonomy in Building Environments, Pantheon Books, New York, 1977.
[3] R. Roosli, P. O'Keefe, Post Disaster Housing and Management in Malaysia: A Literature Reviews, International Journal of Disaster
Resilience in the Built Environment. 4(2) 168-181, 2013.
[4] J. F. C. Turner, Housing as a Verb. In: J. Turner, R. Fichter (Eds.), Freedom to Build: Dweller Control of the Housing Process, Macmillan
Company, New York. 1972, pp. 148-175.
[5] S. L. Foong, Y. Shiozaki, Y. Horita, Evaluation of the Reconstruction Plans for Tsunami Disaster victims in Malaysia, Journal of Asia
Architecture and Building Engineering. 5(2) 293-300, 2006.
[6] R. Roosli, P. O'Keefe, Post Disaster Housing and Management in Malaysia: A Literature Reviews, International Journal of Disaster
Resilience in the Built Environment. 4(2) 168-181, 2013.
[7] R. Ishak, A. Azizi, N. Mohamed, Special Report: Disaster Planning and Management, Environmental Health Unit Occupational and
Environmental Health Section Disease Control Division Minister of Health Malaysia, National Security Council, Kuala Lumpur, 2004.
[8] M. S. Aini, P. Laily, A. Sharifah, J. Zuroni, S. Norhasmah, Sustainability Knowledge, Attitude and Practices of Malaysians, WIT
Transactions on Ecology and the Environment. 9(3) 743-752, 2006.
[9] R. Price, A. Bibee, R. Gonenc, S. Jacobs, J. Konvits, Turkey Post-Earthquake Report, OECD, Paris, 2000.
[10] M. Cernea, C. McDowell, Risks and Reconstruction: Experiences of Resettlers and Refugees, the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, Washington, 2000.
[11] R. Burgess, Petty Commodity Housing or Dweller Control? A Critique of John Turner's Views on Housing Policy, World Development.
9(9/10) 1105–1133, 1978.
[12] M. P. Mulwanda, Active Participants or Passive Observers? Urban Studies. 29(1) 89 – 97, 1992.
[13] L. N. Morago, Forced Displacement and Human Rights: The International Legal Framework Applicable to Refugees and Internally
Displaced Persons, ACTIONAID, London, UK, 2005.
[14] J. N. Levine, A. M. Esnard, A. Sapat, Population Displacement and Housing Dilemmas Due to Catastrophic Disasters, Journal of Planning
Literature. 22(1) 3-15, 2007.
[15] M. Cernea, C. McDowell, Risks and Reconstruction: Experiences of Resettlers and Refugees, the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, Washington, 2000.
[16] B. Imrie, The interrelationships between building regulations and architects' practices, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design.
34(5) 925-943, 2007.
[17] R. Spence, Estimating Shaking-Induced Casualties and Building Damage for Global Earthquake Events, Final Technical Report, Cambridge
Architectural Research Ltd., Cambridge, UK, 2009.
[18] Z. Wang, A Preliminary Report on the Great Wenchuan Earthquake. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration. 7(2) 225-234, 2008.
[19] H. Arslan, A. Unlu, The Evolution of Community Participation in Housing Reconstruction Projects after Duzce Earthquake, Istanbul
Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey, 2007.
[20] H. R. Bernard, Social Research Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2000.
[21] J. M. Morse, Designing Funded Qualitative Research in: K. D. Norman, S. L. Yvonna (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994, pp. 220-350.
[22] World Bank, The World Bank Participation Sourcebook, World Bank, Washington, DC, 1996.