Cultural Considerations for Post-Disaster Recovery: Challenges for Post-Tsunami

Cultural considerations are important to ensure sustainability of interventions undertaken as part of post disaster reconstruction. There are enough examples to show that lack of consideration given to cultural and social concerns serve to reinforce and sometimes-even increase the vulnerability of local communities. 

Two cases presented here, demonstrate this important issue. The first case illustrates the impact of the relocation of 2 villages in Flores, Indonesia, following the 1992 earthquake. The second case investigates the impact of reconstruction following 1993 earthquake in Marathwada, India. In both these cases, the villages were revisited 8 years after the earthquake to study long term implications of these massive reconstruction schemes.

Relocation of 2 Villages in Flores, Indonesia, Following the 1992 Earthquake
On 12 December 1992, a massive earthquake off the North Coast of Flores, a long, narrow island extending from the east to the west, with a population of around 1.5 million residents, caused extensive damage to infrastructure and houses. Approximately 30,000 buildings were damaged by the shaking, out of which half were totally or partially collapsed. Most of these were constructed of bricks or stone masonry. Many buildings along the coastline were heavily damaged too due to the resulting liquefaction and Tsunami.

After the earthquake, the tsunami stricken areas of Wuring and Babi Island were declared dangerous for habitation and it was decided to relocate these 2 villages to new areas - Nangahure and Nangahale. Subsequently in 1993, 800 houses were built in Nangahure and 1000 houses in Nangahale for the earthquake victims. People from Wuring village were relocated to Nangahure and those from Babi Island village to Nangahale. Around 300 families originally moved from Wuring to Nangahure and 400 families moved from the Babi Island village to Nangahale. Eight years after the 1992 earthquake, many houses in Nangahure and Nangahale were abandoned as people moved back to their original village of Wuring and Babi Island, ironically, practically to the pre-1992 earthquake conditions. A preliminary survey in March 2001 revealed the following:

• Ethnicity and religion. Villagers from Wuring came from two ethnic groups – Bajo and Bugis form south Sulawesi. Wuring was their ancestral home for over hundred years. The population of Nangahure was not entirely from Wuing village. Besides those families, relocated from Wuring, there were around 500 families from Maumere. The Maumeres were devout Catholics unlike the Bugis and Bajos who were Muslims. For centuries they had lived in harmony in Flores, retaining their culture, social environment etc., since they had their own areas/villages. Moving to Nangahure they faced problems in adjusting to and changing habits, environment etc. In Nangahure, the government overlooked this problem and settled these two culturally and socially distinct groups in one village. 

• Location and type of houses. The houses constructed for the villagers of Wuring, were 200 meters from the shoreline, in order to avoid damage from future tsunamis. The houses were constructed in military barrack style by army officials completely opposed to the traditional housing styles of the fisher folks – on poles, and therefore was opposed to their traditional lifestyle.

Despite government initiatives to build mosques, a fish auction building and other public facilities, they were unable to keep the villagers in Nangahure. The story of one village in Babi Island, which was relocated to Nangahale on Flores Island, is similar. The villagers on Babi Island were mainly fisher folk. The village also consisted of farmers, who grew crops in the hillside. Both communities lived in the same village in similar kind of dwellings constructed on poles in order to protect the houses from flooding during high tide. After relocating to Nangahale the villagers had to cope with changing cropping patterns and moving away from the sea- their source of livelihood, making their life difficult. Religion was another aspect as most native villagers from Babi Island were Muslims, while the local residents of Nangahale were Catholics.

Reconstruction Program Following Marathwada Earthquake of 1993 
As a result of the 1993 Earthquake that shook Marathwada region of Western India, traditional rural settlements in this area characterized by vernacular housing suffered enormous damage. This was primarily due to heavy roofs (mud) and thick stonewalls with weak bonding, especially at joints, which caused huge loss of life. On the basis of quick damage assessment immediately after the earthquake, the traditional techniques of vernacular housing were deemed to be the major cause of loss of life. All local construction practices were rejected by the 'official expert agencies'. Local people who saw their loved ones die under the heap of stone rubble also developed an acute fear. Modern technology was favored over traditional techniques, which were considered to be 'unsafe' for future habitation. Massive reconstruction programs were initiated and many villages were relocated using new designs and technology. However, eight years after the reconstruction process began; many problems were being encountered in these relocated villages, most of which were the result of relocation itself. Some of the findings from the survey were:

• Location of houses: The people were relocated on agricultural land acquired from other villages. As a result, some of the relocated villagers, either lost their land to relocation of other villages, thus becoming landless forever, or they themselves had to relocate far from their own agricultural lands, sometimes more than 5 kms away.

• Spatial plan. The new designs of houses and the spatial plan of villages were totally incompatible to the traditional rural “way of life”. Traditional settlements were replaced by a complete “city like” plan with wide streets forming grid a pattern, and row housing, leaving little or no space for several traditional activities, especially for the artisans. Villages were many-fold larger in area. This meant expensive infrastructure and maintenance, unaffordable to the villagers. 

• Criteria of house allocation. The criteria of house allocation on the basis of size of land-holdings created new ‘economic-disparities’ and completely destroyed the traditional social systems based on ‘neighborhood units’ and ‘dependencies that ensured mutual sustainability’. Traditional the artisans are believed to act as a support system for the village and not supposed to cultivate their land, they remain landless or as marginalized farmers. As a result, the houses occupied by artisans are smallest. An interesting example of this is the provision of attached toilets in houses. Traditionally, these people are not even used to having toilets (they use the fields). Now we find these toilets being used to store grain. 

• Lack of local participation. The appreciable efforts of some agencies/individuals such as HUDCO (Housing and Urban Development Corporation) towards incorporating traditional patterns in the new village-plan do need to be mentioned. However, in all these efforts there was little or no involvement of the locals in the process. The attitude was that of 'adoption and provision' rather than 'facilitation'. This made villagers dependent and raised their expectations.

As a consequence of the above, many people decided to vacate these relocated villages and move back to their old site. In fact, people cleared the old site of vegetation and debris, and started to re-construct their old houses employing traditional techniques in their entirety. Unfortunately, they have not employed any 'earthquake-resistant' features in their new 'traditional' constructions. So again, all the efforts of the Government and various NGOs towards 'information dissemination' and 'technology transfer' were wasted. It is saddening to note that similar mistakes were repeated after the 2001 Gujarat earthquake.

From the two cases presented here it is clear that lack of cultural continuity and compatibility is certainly a key issue resulting in increasing disaster vulnerability after post disaster reconstruction. 

Relocation – Is It Sustainable?
From histories of ancient cities, towns etc, it is obvious that it was not a matter of mere coincidence that populations, families, groups and communities were physically located in certain neighborhoods and places. Such physical placements were the result of very complex and historically rooted natural and social forces. As mentioned earlier, relocation needs very careful planning, thorough analysis because it concerns setting up a new community. Relocation involves movement of communities and not only families and people. In short, we are dealing with a principle matter, namely ‘moving a way of life’. It implies moving the place where people live, work, the place where the children play, and many others integrated social functions that are part of the social life of a given community. This is more so in developing countries, where the “network” of social life at the village or community level is very complex and there are a number of highly interrelated physical and social elements. It implies relocating a collective way of life. Therefore, before undertaking relocation as part of post disaster rehabilitation, it is suggested to analyze the characteristics of the population targeted for relocation. From this analysis it will be possible to assess the real needs of the people, to ensure long-term sustainability. Moreover, localized means suiting the local socio-cultural settings should be used. Developing countries, in particular, should avoid using social technologies universally known but inappropriate for their own socio-cultural settings. 

We are confronted with similar challenges in the aftermath of devastating Sumatra Earthquake and Indian Ocean Tsunami and massive relief and recovery operations are underway following this tragedy. It is important that as responsible professionals we raise our voice against destruction of harmonious relationships that have been developed by the local communities over generations and address the issues of recovery and development with a cultural perspective. It is about time that we influence the decision makers to be culturally sensitive, so that past mistakes are not repeated and reconstruction initiatives help in reinstating the way of life of the local people, which truly represents the culture than merely a few historic buildings.

This article is an extract for a paper co-authored by Mr Teddy Boen and Mr Rohit Jigyasu. The complete paper is available for download here

Mr Teddy Boen is a structural and earthquake engineer with over 30 years experience in earthquake damages in Indonesia. A senior advisor of WSSI, associated with several international organizations, he can be contacted at tedboen@cbn.net.id. 

Rohit Jigyagu is an architect, planner and conservation consultant based in India. He can be contacted at Rohit.Jigyasu@ark.ntnu, rjigyasu@hotmail.com