The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1759-5908.htm
IJDRBE
6,3
300
Received 12 November 2013
Revised 3 October 2014
20 October 2014
Accepted 21 October 2014
International Journal of Disaster
Resilience in the Built
Environment
Vol. 6 No. 3, 2015
pp. 300-312
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1759-5908
DOI 10.1108/IJDRBE-11-2013-0042
An evaluation framework for
assessing resilience of
post-disaster housing
Iftekhar Ahmed
School of Architecture and Design, RMIT University, Craigieburn,
Australia, and
Esther Ruth Charlesworth
Department of Architecture, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to discuss the utility of a tool for assessing resilience of
housing. After disasters, maximum resources are often allocated for housing reconstruction, and most
initiatives on disaster resilient housing have arisen after disasters. With widespread claims by agencies
of having “built back better”, it is important to establish an evaluation framework that allows
understanding to what extent resilience has been successfully achieved in such housing projects. This
paper discusses such a tool developed by the authors.
Design/methodology/approach – In a study commissioned by the Australian Shelter Reference
Group, the authors have developed an evaluation tool for assessing resilience in housing and tested it in
several housing reconstruction projects in the Asia-Pacific region. Various evaluation frameworks were
reviewed to develop the tool. An approach derived from the log frame was adapted in alignment with
other key approaches. The tool is practical and targeted for agency staff involved in housing projects,
evaluators of housing reconstruction projects and communities to assess their housing in terms of
resilience. It comprises three main stages of an assessment process with guided activities at each stage.
Findings – The tool was tested in the Cook Islands and Sri Lanka, and the key findings of the test
assessments are presented to demonstrate the prospects of the tool. While the case study projects all
indicated achievement of a level of resilience, problems were evident in terms of designs issues and
external factors.
Originality/value – Such a tool has the potential to be used more widely through advocacy to
prioritise resilience in post-disaster housing reconstruction.
Keywords Evaluation, NGO, Housing, Asia-Pacific, Resilience, Reconstruction
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Housing is usually the most valuable asset for people and is often extensively
devastated in disasters, resulting in significant economic loss at the national level
The authors acknowledge Caritas-Australia for allocating funding for the above study; AusAID
(ex) for providing the funds to Caritas-Australia under the Humanitarian Partnership Agreement,
a component of which related specifically to disaster risk reduction and management; and Shelter
Reference Group (SRG), Australia for commissioning and facilitating the research project entitled
Scoping Study: Shelter and Disaster Risk Reduction in the Asia-Pacific Region, from which this
paper is derived.
(Lyons, 2009; Marti, 2005). The impact of disasters on the built environment is Resilience of
particularly high in developing countries, estimated at more than 20 times than in post-disaster
developed countries (Barakat, 2003), because of the often widespread weak construction
and, consequently, extensive devastation. Hence, in post-disaster recovery programmes,
housing
maximum resources and priority are often allocated to housing and infrastructure
reconstruction (Lang, 2008), and it is also common to find the development of guidelines
and initiatives for safer buildings mainly after major disasters (ERRA, 2006, after the 301
2005 Pakistan Earthquake; NHDA, 2005, after the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami in Sri
Lanka). It is unfortunate that unless a disaster strikes, there is little concern for building
resilient housing. It is, however, understandably difficult for housing providers to
anticipate disaster impacts in advance, unless there is a history of disasters in the area.
Additionally, it proves difficult to mobilise extra funds for resilience from donors, unless
a disaster impact is evident. Thus, resilient housing initiatives often tend to be part of
post-disaster reconstruction programmes.
During reconstruction, there is the opportunity to understand and thereby address
and overcome the underlying vulnerabilities that had previously led to weak housing,
and also the future risks that threaten durability and sustainability of housing. As
suggested by Lyons and Schilderman (2010), building housing back to a better standard,
based on local knowledge and participation, has the potential to contribute to long-term
disaster risk reduction. Reconstructed or rehabilitated housing with future risk in mind
can thus prove more sustainable.
There is a complex set of challenges for agencies to incorporate disaster resilience
into housing because of the dynamic nature of disasters. Because of the long-term nature
of housing, often with an expected service life of at least 50 years, agencies building
housing are confronted with a wide range of factors that may emerge in the future, for
example rapid urbanisation and climate change, which may undermine resilience.
Additionally, housing is not only about constructing dwelling units, but encompasses
various social, economic and environmental factors, demanding a sustainable and
holistic approach that can lead to disaster resilient housing. Thus, understanding
whether resilience has been achieved in housing can be a complex process, as it has to
take into consideration this wide array of factors.

Background
Asia is the continent most affected by natural disasters (EM-DAT, 2012), and the Pacific
region is highly vulnerable to changes in sea level and exposed to coastal hazards such
as cyclones and tsunamis (World Bank and SOPAC, 2009). A number of member
agencies of the Shelter Reference Group (SRG), Australia, such as Caritas,
Emergency Architects, Habitat for Humanity, Red Cross and World Vision, are active in
the Asia-Pacific region in implementing post-disaster housing reconstruction
programmes. In response to the interest of the SRG to obtain a better understanding of
the provision of resilient housing in the disaster-prone Asia-Pacific region, a scoping
study was carried out by the authors (Charlesworth and Ahmed, 2012), from which this
paper has been derived.
The key aim of the study was to develop a resource for the SRG and other agencies
which can support the assessment and thereby implementation of disaster-resilient
housing in the Asia-Pacific region. To address this aim, an evaluation tool was
developed through a literature review and extensive consultation with SRG member
IJDRBE agencies. It was then tested in the context of housing projects of some of these agencies
6,3 in two countries in the Asia-Pacific region – the Cook Islands and Sri Lanka. This paper
discusses the development of the evaluation tool, key findings of the assessment tests in
the case study countries and future prospects of the tool.

Housing evaluation frameworks

302 Since former President of the USA, Bill Clinton, advocated the “building back better”
slogan in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, there continue to be
widespread claims by various agencies in line with that slogan that post-disaster
housing implemented by them are of a better standard than previous housing that was
devastated and more resilient to disasters (IFRC, 2008). However, how to assess if such
claims are accurate? A tool to evaluate the performance of housing in terms of disaster
resilience is needed for that purpose, and to develop such a tool, a review of literature,
particularly on evaluation frameworks, was carried out.
Broadly, three main evaluation framework categories were evident from the
literature review. Firstly, a generic framework, such as the Log Frame Approach, as
discussed below. Secondly, programme evaluation tools used in the context of specific
programmes, such as that used for evaluating Caritas’s post-tsunami programme in Sri
Lanka (MDF, 2009), but here housing is one of the many programme elements that are
evaluated and hence not the main focus. Thirdly, evaluation tools to look specifically at
housing, such as those developed by some SRG agencies – ASPIRE by Arup and
Engineers Against Poverty (Pearce and Batchelor, 2010), Post-Occupancy Evaluation
by Emergency Architects (EAA, n.d.), Adequate or Minimum Housing Standards by
Habitat for Humanity (HFHA, n.d., a; HFHI-SL, 2009) or on Socio-Economic Aspects of
Shelter by the Red Cross (Djik and Leersum 2009); these tools offer useful insights, but
they were designed to examine broader aspects of housing or issues other than disaster
resilience. These evaluation frameworks are discussed in more detail in the SRG study
(Charlesworth and Ahmed, 2012). The key finding from the literature review pointed to
the need for developing an evaluation tool specific to housing and disaster resilience,
which the SRG then commissioned to produce and test in the context of projects of its
member agencies. Despite the limitations of the above frameworks for the purpose of the
study, some of them offered potential for adaptation to develop this housing and disaster
resilience tool, as discussed below.

The log frame approach

One of the most widely used tools for designing and monitoring, and thereby evaluating,
development projects is the Log Frame (shortened from logical framework) (Villanueva,
2010). The log frame is used right from the beginning of project design and its scope
encompasses the entirety of a project. Project activities and indicators are set out to
implement a project, and an evaluation can only inform whether these indicators are
being met. In that sense, it is not an evaluation tool by itself, but allows conducting
evaluations in line with project design. As the SRG study was concerned with
evaluating completed projects, this approach had limited applicability.
Lizarralde (2002) has adapted the log frame to evaluating completed post-disaster
reconstruction projects, offering a more useful methodological approach for the
evaluation tool in the SRG study. As opposed to a typical log frame, this approach
evaluates the project itself, not only its outcomes. An adaptation of this approach for
developing a framework for the evaluation tool for this study is shown below in Table I. Resilience of
The focus is on a key objective of the project to be evaluated – the application of options post-disaster
for enhancing the resilience of housing of a beneficiary group.
housing
Design and technical factors
While various evaluation frameworks were reviewed, the scope of this paper does not
allow mentioning them all here. It should nonetheless be pointed out that as housing 303
includes intrinsic design and technical factors in relation to resilience, these factors need
to be incorporated within any housing evaluation framework. An evaluation by the
Hunnarshaala Foundation (2006) of post-tsunami housing reconstruction with a specific
technical focus provides details on such factors. Table II below lists these factors and
adding a key factor, sustainability, presents some of the key aspects relating to these

Factors Definition Aspects Key questions

Inputs Human, material and financial
resources required to
incorporate resilience in
housing
Output Articulation of resilience
options before applying it
Result Direct consequence for the
beneficiary of applying the
resilience options
Impacts Indirect or later consequences
and for the beneficiary of using
effects resilience options (or the
situation originating from the
project)
External Factors beyond the control of
factors the implementing agency
Source: Lizarralde (2002)
Efficiency Were the local and external
resources optimised (cost-
effectiveness)?
Was the community specifically
engaged in design/construction?
Was there a dedicated skills
transfer/training component?
Results Were the resilience options realised?
Timing Were they available at the right
time?
Quality Are the resilience options “good” in
the local context?
Pertinence Were the resilience options
available to the most vulnerable
people?
Acceptability Did the local community use the
resilience options?
Were they pre-determined/required,
or optional?
Were they replicated outside the
project?
Are they easy to maintain?
Strategy Did the resilience options
correspond to the needs of the
community?
Scope What proportion of vulnerable
people was covered?
Ultimate objective Did the project reduce the disaster
risks of the community?
Do the community/households feel a
greater sense of security?
External aspects How did the context and
environment affect the results of the Table I.
project? Analytical
framework for the
SRG adaptation tool
IJDRBE factors. When developing the SRG evaluation tool, these factors and aspects were
6,3 incorporated into the adapted framework shown above in Table I, with a corresponding
set of questions that guided the investigation.
The extra factor added, sustainability, relates importantly to livelihood, which
although not strictly a design or technical aspect, yet nonetheless of great significance in
the Asia-Pacific context because of its linkage with housing. Beside the house being a
304 workplace and having strong implications for health and well-being contributing to
economic productivity, production of housing after a disaster can create local jobs and
regenerate the local economy through production, procurement and transport of
building materials (Cosgrave, 2008; Feinstein International Center, 2011). A study
showed that households whose homes were rebuilt after a disaster were able to resume
income-generating activities, which allowed economic recovery from the disaster’s
impacts (HFHA, n.d., b), thus contributing to resilience. Importantly, local capacity can
be developed for building resilient housing and in this sense allows the disaster risk
reduction initiative to be sustained over the long term.

Overview of the housing evaluation tool

Based on the review of evaluation frameworks, a housing evaluation tool was developed
for the SRG to assess to what extent resilience has been achieved in post-disaster
housing projects. The tool was designed to be user-friendly and targeted for:
• staff of agencies who are involved in housing projects in disaster-prone areas;
• evaluators who are tasked with assessing and advising post-disaster housing
projects and programmes in terms of disaster risk reduction; and
• communities themselves to support their own investigations and learning,
and action-planning and lobbying for disaster risk reduction.

The tool comprises three main stages of the assessment process with a corresponding
set of activities (Figure 1):
(1) Pre-assessment stage: Firstly, the geographical boundaries are set and the project
case studies to be assessed are selected. Once this is done, relevant project
documents of agencies and other secondary literature on the project context and
environment, particularly on disasters, are collected and reviewed. Then,
preparation is taken for fieldwork by establishing local contacts.
(2) Assessment stage: This is the central stage of the evaluation where assessments are
carried out at two levels: community level, including project beneficiaries and/or
residents of the housing built in the project, and agency level, mainly staff of agencies

Factors Aspects

Construction practices Specific risk reduction technologies; quality of construction

and building materials
Housing design Dimensions; layouts; functional provisions; potential for
Table II. extension; climatic response
Design and technical Site selection/planning Location; elevation; drainage; infrastructure and services
factors relating to Repair and maintenance Ease; accessibility of materials and skills; cost-effectiveness
housing evaluation Sustainability Replicability; livelihood potential; environment friendliness
 Define geographical
Resilience of
PRE-ASSESSMENT
STAGE
boundaries &
Review agency
project documents
Plan fieldwork &
establish local contacts post-disaster
project case studies
housing

Hazard mapping &

ranking
305
Community level Key informant
assessment interviews

ASSESSMENT Direct observation

STAGE & documentation

Hazard mapping &

ranking
Agency level
assessment
Key informant
interviews
Figure 1.
Flowchart showing
the key elements of
CONSOLIDATION Analysis of findings/ Validation at the housing
STAGE Draft report stakeholders meeting
evaluation tool

who were involved with and/or familiar with the project. A series of semi-structured
activities guide the assessments.
(3) Consolidation stage: After conducting fieldwork, the data collected are analysed and
a draft report produced. The findings of the assessment are shared with stakeholders
for validation, and thereby a final evaluation report is produced.

As mentioned, the assessment stage was central and within it, the Key Informant Interviews
were found to be the most important activity for gaining insights on the performance of
housing vis-à-vis resilience. A checklist of investigation issues based on the analytical
framework shown above in Tables I and II was the basis of the interviews. The same
checklist was used with key informants at the agency and community levels with the
objective of triangulating and thereby validating the information collected. The Key
Informant Interviews were strongly supplemented by on-site Direct Observation and
Documentation. The hazard mapping and ranking activities were not conducted during the
test assessments in the scoping study, as the case study housing projects were not
sufficiently multi-hazard to warrant these activities. However, these activities would be
important elements of the tool if used elsewhere with more complex conditions.
The tool provides guidance and templates for most of the activities at each stage of the
assessment process. The scope of this paper does not allow sharing all those materials;
complete details are available from the scoping report (Charlesworth and Ahmed, 2012).

Summary of the case study findings

To test the evaluation tool, two case study countries in the Asia-Pacific region – The
Cook Islands and Sri Lanka – were selected in consultation with SRG member agencies.
IJDRBE Within each country, respectively, two and three housing projects were selected,
6,3 through which the evaluation tool was tested via extensive in-country fieldwork.
Table III below summarises the main aspects of the housing projects in the two case
study countries where the evaluation tool was tested.
A snapshot of the findings from the case studies is given below. It should however be
mentioned that the fieldwork findings per se were not the focus of the study; they
306 principally demonstrate how the tool can be used for getting insights into the
performance of housing projects in terms of disaster resilience.
Aitutaki, Cook Islands (Emergency Architects). Quality of construction and building
materials were of high standard, and the houses incorporated resilience features to resist
cyclones, the main hazard there.
Houses being small required extensions for large households, often built without
professional support. It is uncertain if such extensions would be as resilient as the
original house, in which case the occupants and household belongings would be
vulnerable to future cyclones (Plate 1).
Mangaia, Cook Islands (Partner Housing/Red Cross). The system of roof anchoring
introduced in the project provided better resilience to cyclones, addressing a key
vulnerable part of the house.
Although the whole structure was not strengthened and only a part of the roof was
made secure, it still improved the resilience of houses to some extent.
Reliance on imported materials might affect sustainability and long-term resilience
(Plate 2).
Galle, Sri Lanka (Habitat for Humanity). Although the area still suffered from
flooding, on the whole, the situation of the community was much improved by the
project and the community’s vulnerability had been reduced.

No. of
Country Location Lead agency houses Key resilience features

Cook Islands Aitutaki Emergency Architects 66 Cyclone-resistant design

Robust construction
Cook Islands Mangaia Partner Housing; Red Cross 30 Anchoring of roof to resist cyclones
Sri Lanka Galle Habitat for Humanity 22 Inland location to avoid coastal
hazards
Elevated land to avoid flooding
Durable building materials
Sri Lanka Galle Caritas 76 Inland location to avoid coastal
hazards
Elevated land to avoid flooding
Durable building materials
Sri Lanka Kirinda World Vision 68 Inland elevated location to avoid
coastal hazards and flooding
Durable building materials
Integrated programme including
Table III. DRR training and EWS
Main aspects of the
case studies Notes: DRR ⫽ disaster risk reduction; EWS ⫽ early warning system
External factors such as uncoordinated road construction and lack of drainage by local Resilience of
authorities undermined the efforts of Habit for Humanity and increased the post-disaster
community’s vulnerability (Plate 3).
Galle, Sri Lanka (Caritas). Inland location, adequate site preparation, construction of
housing
good-quality houses and provision of drainage had led to a resilient community.
This project represented a gradual process of consolidation of community resilience
(Plate 4). 307
Kirinda, Sri Lanka (World Vision). Elevated inland location and construction of
good-quality houses had led to a resilient community.
An integrated community development approach including a disaster risk reduction
community training component had contributed towards long-term resilience.
External factors such as inadequate public services provision by local authorities
undermined the resilience-building efforts of World Vision (Plate 5).

Implications of the case study findings

To analyse the findings from the case studies, responses by housing beneficiaries and
related agency staff to questions relating to the five factors of the evaluation framework
as shown in Table I were coded and compared firstly across the case studies in each
country and then across the two countries. Triangulation allowed identifying

Plate 1.
One-bedroom type
(left) and
two-bedroom type
(right) houses of the
reconstruction
project in Aitutaki
after a cyclone in
2010

Plate 2.
House in Mangaia
with the roof
anchoring system to
resist cyclones
IJDRBE
6,3

308

Plate 3.
Habitat for Humanity
house in Galle

Plate 4.
Caritas house in
Galle

Plate 5.
World Vision house
in Kirinda
commonalities and congruence within the responses, as well as drawing out unique Resilience of
aspects. The analysis led to two key insights as below at the broader level across all the post-disaster
projects:
housing
(1) All the five case study housing projects were found to have reduced disaster risk
to varying levels, and had contributed to beneficiaries’ resilience.
(2) All the projects represented a marked improvement to previous vulnerable
living conditions. 309
However, exploring the uniqueness of the projects, it was found that despite the overall
positive findings, various problematic issues were revealed in the test assessments,
especially with regard to the Result factor concerning housing design issues. For
example, the one-size-fits-all approach followed in all the projects (except in Mangaia,
where the scope was different) resulted in the obvious lack of space for large households
and too much space for small ones, affecting the local acceptability of the housing.
External Factors also played a significant role in undermining the sustainability of
beneficiary communities at a general level in all the projects, manifested in different
ways in the two countries. In the Cook Islands, due to lack of local production, heavy
reliance on outside commodities acted as a serious constraint to resilience and
sustainability. In Sri Lanka, varying levels of service provision by NGOs and the
government affected resilience; while communities were sheltered in well-built disaster
resilient houses built by NGOs, lack of public service provision (drainage, roads, etc.)
contributed to vulnerability, undoing the efforts of NGOs.
The case study findings also allowed identifying positive elements that have broader
strategic implications for effective post-disaster housing reconstruction, which include
two key insights as below:
(1) Projects that provided a wider set of Inputs integrated with housing contributed
to better community resilience; to some extent, the World Vision project in
Kirinda demonstrated this.
(2) Agencies that engaged with communities over a long term and did not fold up
their operations in the beneficiary community soon after project completion were
able to assist contributing to the typically gradual process of consolidation of
community resilience, as the Caritas project in Galle demonstrated.

In addition to gaining insights into the outcomes of the housing projects, the field tests
allowed reviewing the evaluation tool itself to understand the practicalities of utilising it
in the future. In this respect, the following aspects became evident:
• Need for experience to decide which issues are more relevant and not follow the
tool mechanically and thereby avoid information overload.
• Hazard Mapping and Ranking should be done in multi-hazard areas where there
are varying levels of exposure and sensitivity to hazards. These activities require
a larger team (at least two or more evaluators) and a strong involvement of
agencies commissioning the evaluation.
• Key Informant Interviews (complemented by Direct Observation and
Documentation) were found to be the most pertinent and readily applicable
activity. However, interviews of agency staff and beneficiaries should be done
independently to avoid influencing the responses.
IJDRBE • Importance of the Pre-Assessment Stage, particularly to plan the fieldwork, needs
6,3 to be recognised to avoid frustrations during the assessment stage due to varying
cultural and organisational perceptions and practices. Also, key agency
informants who worked on the project might not be available in an extended
period after project completion, and therefore adequately knowledgeable agency
representatives need to be identified.
310
• Extensive Documentation during the assessment stage is most important for
recall after completion of fieldwork. Digital photography and audio recording
complements the evaluation tool, which may require additional skills.

Recommendations and conclusion

The test assessments in two different countries of a variety of housing projects allowed
understanding the utility of the tool in terms of its use by agencies to evaluate the
disaster resilience of housing projects implemented by them. To guide this, a set of
recommendations were provided, as summarised below:
• Evaluations of post-disaster housing reconstruction projects in terms of resilience
should be a standard procedure.
• The tool should be used a few years after houses have been inhabited, and if
applicable, after one or more disaster events.
• The utility of the tool can be extended beyond evaluating reconstruction projects,
and can also be adapted to assess any housing project where it has been attempted
to achieve disaster resilience, whether after a disaster or as part of regular practice
in hazardous areas.
• Being comprehensive, the tool offers flexibility for adapting to the purpose of
individual agencies. Agencies should review the tool in the context of their
housing projects and then decide which of its elements to focus on.
• A key recommendation is the need for training for proper utilisation of the tool,
particularly where organisational capacity and experience are limited.
• Agencies should ensure that all stages of implementation of a housing project are
adequately documented (design and construction drawings; photographs), so that
they can serve as supplementary resources during the evaluation.

The evaluation tool was designed to capture a wide range of issues relating to housing
and disaster resilience. Because it is comprehensive, it allows examining different types
of projects. Not all the issues included in the tool would be relevant for all projects, and
some issues might be more important according to specific projects. To prove relevant to
agencies, it would need to be adapted to the particular context and project while
adhering to its structure and processes.
The SRG is considering appropriate ways of disseminating the evaluation tool to its
counterpart and partner agencies in different Asia-Pacific countries, and modalities of
training provision. It is also anticipated, that the tool would be used for advocacy to
bilateral and multi-lateral donor agencies to promote prioritisation of resilience in
post-disaster housing reconstruction and to provide a solid backing to the “building
back better” slogan.
References Resilience of
Barakat, S. (2003), Housing Reconstruction After Conflict and Disaster, Humanitarian Practice post-disaster
Network, London.
housing
Charlesworth, E. and Ahmed, I. (2012), Scoping Study: Shelter and Disaster Risk Reduction in the
Asia-Pacific Region (report), Shelter Reference Group, Sydney.
Cosgrave, J. (2008), Responding to Earthquakes: Learning From Earthquake Relief and Recovery
Operations, Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in 311
Humanitarian Action (ALNAP), London.
Djik, S.V. and Leersum, A.V. (2009), Measuring Socio-Economic Impact of Post-Disaster Shelter
(PowerPoint Presentation), Red Cross, The Hague.
EAA (n.d.), Post-Occupancy Assessment/Performance Evaluation (template), Emergency
Architects Australia (EAA), Sydney.
EM-DAT (2012), “The international disaster database”, available at: www.emdat.be/natural-
disasters-trends (accessed 5 September, 2012).
ERRA (2006), Guidelines for Earthquake Resistant Construction of Non-Engineered Rural and
Suburban Masonry Houses in Cement Sand Mortar in Earthquake Affected Areas,
Earthquake Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA), Pakistan.
Feinstein International Center (2011), Examining Linkages Between Disaster Risk Reduction and
Livelihoods, Tufts University, Medford, MA.
HFHA (n.d., a), Minimum Housing Standards, Habitat for Humanity Australia (HFHA), Sydney.
HFHA (n.d., b), Housing & Livelihoods (factsheet), Habitat for Humanity Australia (HFHA),
Sydney.
HFHI-SL (2009), Defining Indicators to Measure Adequate Housing in Sri Lanka, Habitat for
Humanity International – Sri Lanka (HFHI-SL), Colombo.
Hunnarshaala Foundation (2006), Mid-Term Socio-Technical Assessment of Shelter
Reconstruction, UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), New Delhi.
IFRC (2008), Annual Report 2008, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies (IFRC), Geneva.
Lang, H. (2008), “Community housing in post disaster area on Nias islands, Indonesia: responding
to community needs”, Proceedings of the 4th International I-Rec Conference, University of
Canterbury, Christchurch.
Lizarralde, G. (2002), “Organizational design, performance and evaluation of post-disaster
reconstruction projects”, Improving Post-disaster Reconstruction in Developing Countries
(Conference Proceedings), Université de Montréal, Montreal.
Lyons, M. (2009), “Building back better: the large-scale impact of small-scale approaches to
reconstruction”, World Development, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 385-398.
Lyons, M. and Schilderman, T. (Eds) (2010), Building Back Better: Delivering People-Centred
Housing Reconstruction at Scale, Practical Action Publishing, Rugby.
Marti, R.Z. (2005), The 2004 Hurricanes in the Caribbean and the Tsunami in the Indian Ocean,
United Nations Publications, New York, NY.
MDF (2009), External (global) Evaluation Report of the Project “SOA 3/2005” Tsunami Relief,
Rehabilitation & Reconstruction Program (report), Management for Development (MDF)
South Asia, Newala.
NHDA (National Housing Development Authority) (2005), Guidelines for Housing Development in
Coastal Sri Lanka, Ministry of Housing and Construction, Colombo.
IJDRBE Pearce, I. and Batchelor, V. (2010), Evaluating the Long-Term Impact of Shelter Programmes
(PowerPoint Presentation), Habitat for Humanity Great Britain, & Arup International
6,3 Development, London.
Villanueva, P.S. (2010), Learning to ADAPT: Monitoring and Evaluation Approaches in Climate
Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction, Strengthening Climate Resilience
Consortium, UK.
312 World Bank and SOPAC (2009), Preparedness, Planning, and Prevention: Assessment of National
and Regional Efforts to Reduce Natural Disaster and Climate Change Risks in the Pacific,
World Bank, Washington, DC.

About the authors

Iftekhar Ahmed is a Research Fellow at RMIT University, Australia. He specialises in
post-disaster housing reconstruction and has worked and conducted research in this field in
several countries in the Asia-Pacific region. He has worked as a consultant for UNDP, UNESCAP,
UN-Habitat, ADPC, Oxfam and the European Commission’s Humanitarian Assistance Office
(ECHO), and continues to be an advisor to the Postgraduate Programs in Disaster Management
(PPDM); BRAC University, Bangladesh; and the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC),
Thailand. Iftekhar Ahmed is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
ifte.ahmed@rmit.edu.au
Esther Charlesworth is an Associate Professor and Australian Research Council “Future
Fellow” in Architecture at RMIT University, Australia. Her key areas of research and design
practice include: design for communities in need, design for sustainable development,
international development and remote indigenous housing. She is the Founding and Executive
Director of Architects Without Frontiers, an organisation that focuses on long-term community
development projects, integrating design and appropriate technology into sustainable
development practice through partnership with communities, other non-profits, clients and
organisations.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com