Promoting Safer Building - Using science, technology, communication and humanitarian practice to support family and community self-recovery

促进更安全的建筑 - 利用科学、技术、通信和人道主义实践来支持家庭和社区的自我恢复

• 批准号: NE/P016200/1
• 负责人: John Twigg
• 金额: $ 20.32万
• 依托单位: Overseas Development Institute
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2016
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2016 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=NE%2FP016200%2F1
• 关键词: Promoting; Safer; Building; Using; science

Poorly constructed buildings are often the largest cause of injury, trauma and death in the event of a natural disaster. Most families rebuild houses relying on their own resources, with little or no external support. They "self-recover". An analysis of statistics shows that the impact of aid agencies on housing recovery rarely reaches more than 20% of affected families and is frequently in single figures (Parrack, 2014). Moreover, much of that support is in the form of temporary housing intended to last only a few years. Therefore, we know that 80%, or more, self-recover.The potential impact is huge: any one emergency can leave hundreds of thousands of families homeless, with women and girls disproportionately affected (Bradshaw, 2015). As things stand, these homes are too often rebuilt using the same pre-disaster bad practice that caused so much death, injury and economic damage in the first place.Currently, shelter professionals lack understanding of the recovery process and therefore of inherent opportunities for appropriate and effective support. Families choose when and how to rebuild based on little-understood circumstances. Empowering them in the exercise of informed choice is integral to assisting self-recovery. There are neither tools nor knowledge to effectively support this at scale. The challenge for the humanitarian community, as well as national and local organisations, is to support this inevitable process of self-recovery.While efforts are made to include Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) into many emergency and recovery shelter interventions, these activities are often very narrow in scope, frequently limited to the printing of simple guidance sheets. These have very little impact on resilience of self-built housing stock.We know that simply informing people about risk - poor engineering, construction, and hazard risk - does not result in changed behaviour (van Wijk 1995), or in better, safer homes and communities. We also know there are no universal solutions. Evidence from post-disaster needs-assessments shows that families rapidly rebuild their homes with little or no knowledge of safer building techniques or the environmental factors that may increase their vulnerability. However there is evidence that demand for technical assistance can be very high soon after a rapid onset disaster. Only 12% of respondents interviewed for a CARE Nepal survey were able to name any techniques for improving seismic performance of a house, but 60% listed building safety as a top concern.Currently, the international aid community lacks skills to adequately contextualise each unique situation, arrive rapidly and reliably at key technical messages and effectively transmit and promote those messages in a way that allows informed choice and ensures maximum acceptance by the affected population. Current post-disaster programmes do not systematically or effectively address the motivations (want), resources (can) and abilities (know-how) of beneficiaries in the process of self-recovery.Through the multidisciplinary research of scientists, engineers and humanitarian practitioners, this proposal addresses the needs of those who self-build. It specifically addresses two important gaps:- Technical best practice - what key construction and siting messages will make a substantial improvement to self-building in different contexts?- Changing current practice - getting the message across; what communication and promotion methods really work; learning from current technology transfer and public education approaches.References:Parrack, C; Flinn, B and Passey, M (2014): Open House Internationalvan Wijk, C; Murre, T (1995): UNICEFBradshaw, S., Fordham, M., (2015): Elsevier

在发生自然灾害时，建筑质量差往往是受伤、创伤和死亡的最大原因。大多数家庭依靠自己的资源重建房屋，很少或根本没有外部支持。他们会“自我恢复”。一项统计分析表明，援助机构对住房恢复的影响很少达到20%以上的受影响家庭，而且往往是个位数(Parrak，2014)。此外，这些支持大部分是以临时住房的形式提供的，这些住房只打算持续几年。因此，我们知道80%或更多的人能够自我康复。潜在影响是巨大的：任何一次紧急情况都可能导致数十万个家庭无家可归，妇女和女孩受到的影响不成比例(Bradshaw，2015)。就目前的情况而言，这些房屋的重建往往采用灾前的糟糕做法，而这种做法一开始就造成了如此多的伤亡和经济损失。目前，避难所专业人员缺乏对恢复过程的了解，因此缺乏获得适当和有效支持的内在机会。家庭根据鲜为人知的情况选择重建的时间和方式。增强他们作出知情选择的能力是协助自我恢复所不可或缺的。既没有工具也没有知识来在规模上有效地支持这一点。人道主义界以及国家和地方组织面临的挑战是支持这一不可避免的自我恢复进程。虽然努力将减少灾害风险纳入许多紧急和恢复避难所干预措施，但这些活动的范围往往非常狭窄，往往仅限于印刷简单的指导单。这些对自建住房库存的弹性几乎没有影响。我们知道，简单地告知人们风险--糟糕的工程、建筑和危险风险--不会导致行为改变(Van Wijk 1995)，也不会导致更好、更安全的家庭和社区。我们也知道，没有万能的解决方案。来自灾后需求评估的证据表明，家庭在几乎或根本不了解更安全的建筑技术或可能增加其脆弱性的环境因素的情况下，迅速重建家园。然而，有证据表明，在一场迅速发生的灾难发生后不久，对技术援助的需求可能非常高。在尼泊尔CARE的一项调查中，只有12%的受访者能够说出任何改善房屋抗震性能的技术，但60%的受访者将建筑安全列为首要关注的问题。目前，国际援助界缺乏充分考虑每一种独特情况的技能，无法快速可靠地到达关键技术信息，并以允许知情选择和确保最大限度地被受影响人口接受的方式有效地传播和宣传这些信息。目前的灾后方案没有系统或有效地解决受益者在自我恢复过程中的动机(想要)、资源(可以)和能力(诀窍)。通过科学家、工程师和人道主义从业人员的多学科研究，这项提议解决了自建者的需求。它具体解决了两个重要的差距：-技术最佳实践-什么关键的建设和选址信息将在不同的背景下对自身建设产生实质性的改进？-改变当前的实践--传播信息；什么沟通和推广方法真正有效；从当前的技术转让和公共教育方法中学习。参考：Parack，C；Flinn，B和Passey，M(2014)：Open House International van Wijk，C；Murre，T(1995)：UNICEFBradshaw，S.，Fordham，M.(2015)：Elsevier

项目成果

Defining 'better' better. Why Building Back Better means more than structural safety.

更好地定义“更好”。

• 发表时间: 2020
• 期刊: Journal of Humanitarian Affairs
• 作者: Flinn B

The state of humanitarian shelter and settlements 2018

2018 年人道主义庇护所和安置点状况

• 发表时间: 2018
• 作者: Schofield H

The Case for Self-Recovery

自我康复的案例

• 发表时间: 2017
• 期刊: Forced Migration Review
• 作者: Flinn B

Shelter Projects 2014 - 2016. Chile Valparaiso.

2014 - 2016 年住房项目。智利瓦尔帕莱索。

• 发表时间: 2017
• 作者: Pohoryles, D

The influence of the physical environment on self-recovery after disasters in Nepal and the Philippines

• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101673
• 发表时间: 2020-05
• 期刊: International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction
• 影响因子: 5
• 作者: S. Sargeant;A. Finlayson;T. Dijkstra;B. Flinn;H. Schofield;L. Morel;J. Twigg;E. Lovell;V. Stephenson;B. Adhikari