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

在发生自然灾害时，建造不良的建筑物往往是造成伤害、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“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超过20%的受影响家庭，而且经常是个位数（Parrack, 2014）。此外，这种支持的大部分都是以只能维持几年的临时住房的形式提供的。因此，我们知道80%或更多的人能够自我恢复。潜在的影响是巨大的：任何一个紧急情况都可能使成千上万的家庭无家可归，妇女和女孩受到的影响尤为严重（Bradshaw, 2015）。就目前的情况来看，这些房屋的重建往往采用了同样的灾前不良做法，而这些做法首先造成了如此多的死亡、伤害和经济损失。目前，住房专业人员对恢复过程缺乏了解，因此对提供适当和有效支助的固有机会也缺乏了解。家庭根据鲜为人知的情况选择何时以及如何重建。赋予他们行使知情选择的权力是协助自我恢复的必要条件。既没有工具也没有知识来有效地大规模支持这一点。人道主义团体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过程。虽然已作出努力，将减少灾害风险纳入许多紧急和恢复住房干预措施，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手册。这些对自建住房存量的弹性影响很小。我们知道，简单地告诉人们风险——糟糕的工程、建筑和危险风险——不会导致行为的改变（van Wijk 1995），也不会带来更好、更安全的家庭和社区。我们也知道没有万能的解决办法。来自灾后需求评估的证据表明，家庭在很少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，在一场速发灾害发生后不久，对技术援助的需求可能会非常高。在CARE尼泊尔的一项调查中，只有12%的受访者能够说出任何提高房屋抗震性能的技术，但60%的受访者将建筑安全列为最重要的问题。目前，国际援助界缺乏足够的技能来充分了解每一种独特的情况，迅速可靠地获得关键技术信息，并以一种允许知情选择并确保受影响人口最大程度接受的方式有效地传播和推广这些信息。目前的灾后方案没有系统地或有效地处理受益者在自我恢复过程中的动机（需要）、资源（能够）和能力（专门知识）。通过科学家、工程师和人道主义从业者的多学科研究，该提案解决了那些自建者的需求。它特别解决了两个重要的空白：-技术最佳实践-在不同的环境下，哪些关键的建设和选址信息将对自助建筑产生实质性的改善？-改变目前的做法-传达信息；什么样的沟通和推广方法真正有效；学习目前的技术转让和公共教育方法。引用:Parrack C;Flinn， B和Passey， M (2014): Open House international；Murre, T (1995): UNICEFBradshaw， S., Fordham， M., (2015): Elsevier

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