Ophiyandri, T; Amaratunga, D and Keraminiyage, K (2016) Advantages and limitations of community-based post-disaster housing reconstruction projects. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 7(4), pp. 420-431. ISSN 1759-5916
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to discuss the advantages and limitations of the implementation of a community-based method in post-disaster housing reconstruction. Design/methodology/approach: The research was based on multiple case studies in the implementation of a community-based post-disaster housing reconstruction project (CPHRP) in Indonesia. Data were gathered by conducting semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire survey. Findings: The research reveals 22 advantages of a CPHRP. Four advantages can be categorised as highly significant. They are create sense of ownership, fit to local culture/customs/wisdom, build beneficiaries' confidence and minimize corruption. There are some advantages that cannot be delivered if the housing reconstruction is conducted using a contractor-based approach. It was also found that psychological advantages are more dominant than the physical advantages. Despite its numerous advantages, CPHRP has limitations. First, it requires a long pre-construction process and, second, there is a limitation with regard to the capacity of implementer and there are limitations within the community itself. Originality/value: This paper is very specific because it attempts to discover the advantages and limitations of a CPHRP.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | advantages; community-based; housing reconstruction; Indonesia; limitations; post-disaster |
| Index terms: | ownership, housing reconstruction, implementation, case study, Indonesia, pre-construction, corruption, questionnaire, methodology, post-disaster housing reconstruction, interview, community-based, survey |
| Subjects: | Geography, economic development, economics, post-disaster and reconstruction, research methods, professional ethics, communities and social development, data collection methods, contractual arrangements, project delivery |
| Topics: | Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Legal Issues, Urban Studies |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here